• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Evidence.............

HumblePi said:
He was ON THE CALL, that makes him a first-hand witness.
Click to expand...
The whistleblower was ON THE CALL? Then why did his complaint say he had no first hand knowledge?
 
ataraxia said:
From the posters here and the GOP senators. Aren't you reading the posts or the news?
Click to expand...

Really?

The closest my recollection has it to imply that, is that all evidence had to be presented before the trial. This is normal so the defense has time to study the evidence the prosecution has.

New evidence is a whole different story.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

The closest my recollection has it to imply that, is that all evidence had to be presented before the trial. This is normal so the defense has time to study the evidence the prosecution has.

New evidence is a whole different story.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

When a prosecutor brings a case to a grand jury, she presents the jurors with a "bill" (the charges) and introduces evidence—usually the minimum necessary, in the prosecutor's opinion—to secure an indictment.
Arrest and Early Proceedings in a Criminal Case | Nolo
Click to expand...

They are then free to introduce more evidence/witnesses at the actual trial.
 
j brown's body said:
I'm really curious by what he meant about Trump's "drug deal."

Trump's own EU ambassador testified that Trump was in the quid pro quo for personal gain, and the transcript illustrates it. Many others testified to it.

Are his lawyers even arguing that Trump didn't do it?
Click to expand...

We will learn later if the Anti Trump forces won or lost.
 
ataraxia said:
You are mistaken.



They are then free to introduce more evidence/witnesses at the actual trial.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a grand jury is?

Do you understand my words in saying the prosecution has to give the evidence to the defense they have and it is different from "new" evidence, meaning "newly discovered..."

Do you understand the difference between "more" and "new?"
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you understand what a grand jury is?

Do you understand my words in saying the prosecution has to give the evidence to the defense they have and it is different from "new" evidence, meaning "newly discovered..."

Do you understand the difference between "more" and "new?"
Click to expand...

Bolton's evidence has not been heard and is new
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

The closest my recollection has it to imply that, is that all evidence had to be presented before the trial. This is normal so the defense has time to study the evidence the prosecution has.

New evidence is a whole different story.
Click to expand...

That is completely false
 
vegas giants said:
That is completely false
Click to expand...

I clearly recall the senate telling the house they were preparing for trial, and wanted all the evidence they would present before it started.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I clearly recall the senate telling the house they were preparing for trial, and wanted all the evidence they would present before it started.
Click to expand...

What possible good reason is there not to hear what Bolton has to say?
 
vegas giants said:
What possible good reason is there not to hear what Bolton has to say?
Click to expand...
There's no time, this impeachment is so important to the safety and integrity of the nation that they can't possible take time to process a subpoena and take it to court, if necessary.
 
Bullseye said:
There's no time, this impeachment is so important to the safety and integrity of the nation that they can't possible take time to process a subpoena and take it to court, if necessary.
Click to expand...

Who has time for evidence?????
 
vegas giants said:
Who has time for evidence?????
Click to expand...
Was Bolton born Monday? Seems like he's been around for a long time; like most of the time the House was fiddle-****ing with impeachment.
 
Bullseye said:
Was Bolton born Monday? Seems like he's been around for a long time; like most of the time the House was fiddle-****ing with impeachment.
Click to expand...

He refused to testify then.


He agrees to now.


Why not hear what he has to say?
 
vegas giants said:
He refused to testify then.


He agrees to now.


Why not hear what he has to say?
Click to expand...
He could have been subpoenaed, then. And taken to court if he refused.
 
j brown's body said:
So a successful stonewalling to obstruct justice is okay with you.

That is really sad.
Click to expand...

I recall how it worked for Obama so hell yes. But I do not call it what you called it. I call it the privilege with the office of the president.
 
vegas giants said:
What possible good reason is there not to hear what Bolton has to say?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Issue a subpoena then. Convince the Chief Justice that he is a necessary witness, just like in any other court case.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know. Issue a subpoena then. Convince the Chief Justice that he is a necessary witness, just like in any other court case.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? How can you not know who makes the rules??? Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Are you kidding? How can you not know who makes the rules??? Lol
Click to expand...

The Chief Justice is there for a reason. I was listening yesterday when it was mentioned a few things that he would be asked to rule on. The senate controls most factors of the trial, but the Chief Justice can pretty much make changes as he sees fit.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The Chief Justice is there for a reason. I was listening yesterday when it was mentioned a few things that he would be asked to rule on. The senate controls most factors of the trial, but the Chief Justice can pretty much make changes as he sees fit.
Click to expand...

No he can not. He can even be over ruled by a senate vote.


How can you not know this?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Huh?

I don't follow.

With all the evidence presented in the House impeachment hearing, it was decided they had enough evidence to impeach.

If they have enough evidence, why do they need more?
Click to expand...

Exactly! The house had their chance to call any witness they choose but they told us they had a “mountain of evidence”. Sounds like enough to me. Of course we all know this totally political, with little to do with high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes, of course. In any court, of course, that would be more than enough just by itself.



Of course not. We have a corrupt US senate. We knew this weeks ago, even before the trial. McConnell made it clear. But this is not about them. It's about the American public. They want to know. Why are you trying to hide the evidence from them?



I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...
ahh so now not only is Trump corrupt but also the senate. You guys ever wonder why everyone is corrupt except for dems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom