• 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!

Call your witnesses!

Airyaman

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
27,093
Reaction score
27,578
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
 
Airyaman said:
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
Click to expand...

It appears to who? Where did you ever hear McConnell doesn't have enough votes. We heard this about Republicans in the House and we all say how that turned out.
 
Airyaman said:
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
Click to expand...

A (major?) part of the alleged "crime" is the motive having been purely political - a request to examine non-existent corruption and/or nepotism causing a conflict of interest involving the Bidens. If it turns out that such corruption and/or conflict of interest had existed then that part of the prosecution's charge would be shown to lack merit - which is important evidence for the defense to be able to present.
 
Airyaman said:
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
Click to expand...

Can Trump be called?
 
Airyaman said:
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
Click to expand...

Atkinson - Demand that Schiffty release a transcript of his testimony to the House. If Schiffty refuses, call the guy in and ask him the same questions all over again. If he changes his answers (members of the defense were participators of his House hearing) charge him with perjury and throw the book at him.

Look...there are a number of people who's testimony can show that the entire House scheme was a deliberate and corrupt attempt to attack the President. These people include Schiffty, his staff, Mary McCord, various Lawfare people employed by the House Dems, Ciarramella and others...including that OTHER person who was supposed to be a whistleblower. I'd also call Andrew Peek and Vindman's twin brother to find out if they were involved with leaking and spinning portions of Bolton's book.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A (major?) part of the alleged "crime" is the motive having been purely political - a request to examine non-existent corruption and/or nepotism causing a conflict of interest involving the Bidens. If it turns out that such corruption and/or conflict of interest had existed then that part of the prosecution's charge would be shown to lack merit - which is important evidence for the defense to be able to present.
Click to expand...

This has been going on for some time now...why hasn't anyone beyond Rudy G. looked into it?

(You know why)
 
You need pairs, one for each party. If the Democrats call Bolton, Republicans call Schiff, for example. I am guessing two apiece.

Grand Mal said:
Can Trump be called?
Click to expand...
No. He can choose to testify, but would have to submit to cross examination.
 
Mycroft said:
Atkinson - Demand that Schiffty release a transcript of his testimony to the House. If Schiffty refuses, call the guy in and ask him the same questions all over again. If he changes his answers (members of the defense were participators of his House hearing) charge him with perjury and throw the book at him.
Click to expand...

The testimony should be released. All others (that I know of) were released. But he should have been part of the public hearings.

Look...there are a number of people who's testimony can show that the entire House scheme was a deliberate and corrupt attempt to attack the President. These people include Schiffty, his staff, Mary McCord, various Lawfare people employed by the House Dems, Ciarramella and others...including that OTHER person who was supposed to be a whistleblower. I'd also call Andrew Peek and Vindman's twin brother to find out if they were involved with leaking and spinning portions of Bolton's book.
Click to expand...

So all of these people made Trump do what he did with Ukraine?
 
Airyaman said:
The testimony should be released. All others (that I know of) were released. But he should have been part of the public hearings.



So all of these people made Trump do what he did with Ukraine?
Click to expand...

sigh...

Read what I said..."a deliberate and corrupt attempt to attack the President".
 
Airyaman said:
So it appears McConnell does not have enough votes to block a call for witnesses. That said, if witnesses are called, who would you call?

* Bolton - obvious reasons, more so that the book manuscript excerpt was leaked
* Mulvaney - he can shed more light on why the aid was held up
* Rick Perry - what deal was he cooking up in Ukraine?
* Pompeo - he needs to answer some questions under oath as to all things Ukraine since Rudy G. got involved

What I cannot understand is why Republicans want to call Schiff, his aides, the whistleblower, or the Bidens. I know why they want to call them (muddy the waters, potentially hurt Biden electorally), but I also do not know why they want to treat this like a criminal trial in other ways but not in this one. A defendant should want witnesses who can clear his name or to exonerate him, not witnesses who have nothing to do with the "crime".

So who would you call, and why?
Click to expand...

After Bolton, Mulvaney, Blair, Duffy... because they are all eye-witnesses. Then I'd ask them who else was involved in the "drug deal", and subpoena them as well. :)
 
call the mango marmot to testify under oath.
 
Grand Mal said:
Can Trump be called?
Click to expand...

Bwahhahahaha. Yes, but all six of his lawyers would clapped him in irons and duct-taped him to his WH chair before they'd let that happen.
 
DiAnna said:
Bwahhahahaha. Yes, but all six of his lawyers would clapped him in irons and duct-taped him to his WH chair before they'd let that happen.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Trump should be called to clear his name of this hoax.
 
Airyaman said:
This has been going on for some time now...why hasn't anyone beyond Rudy G. looked into it?

(You know why)
Click to expand...

Yes, well I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy G. has his own set of indictments from NYSD by this time next year. We'll hear all about it then, lol.
 
Obama. He had Biden checked out about Ukraine and Biden said he authorized Biden's extortion.
Everyone on Obama's staff.
Joe Biden, his children and his brother.
Every American in any government position who spoke to either Presidents of Ukraine - and anyone else who did.
Schiff
Everyone on Schiff's staff
Pelosi
Everyone on Pelosi's staff
Everyone on White House, DOJ, FBI, NSA, State Department, and in the military that had any involvement with anyone in the Ukraine government - and in addition any one else of this list who has an opinion on these issues and/or any other element of Trump's foreign policy
Anyone in the government, in banking, and in any other capacity who has any knowledge or any opinion on whether or not at the time of the call there was any corruption going on in Ukraine.
Any and all governmental experts, military experts, business experts, and private sector experts on the level of the likelihood of Russia imminently invading the Ukraine.
Any and all persons who any knowledge of anything about when Obama delayed aid to Ukraine, why, and any positive or negative potential results this had
Every person in the committee for impeachment, all their staff members, and any person any of those people spoke too about any witness.
Every person any witness spoke to - ever - about anything they testified to.

That is the initial list. It was not until the Articles of Impeachment did the defense learned none of this has to do with any crime. Rather, it has to do with foreign policy disputes, separations of power, and whether or not more people agree or disagree with Trump's president policies and actions. Nor could call witnesses in the impeachment hearing.

So all investigation and learning what witnesses might say, who influenced them, who they talked to as they might have said something very different, and of course everyone's opinions and speculations, plus all hearsay and gossip, since it has been agreed all that is admissible and relevant.
 
Jay59 said:
You need pairs, one for each party. If the Democrats call Bolton, Republicans call Schiff, for example. I am guessing two apiece.


No. He can choose to testify, but would have to submit to cross examination.
Click to expand...

They have to be relevant witnesses; Hunter & Joe Biden have no clue what happened in Ukraine during Trump's tenure. As for Schiff, lol, that's kinda like the defendant's attorney demanding to cross examine the prosecutor. Isn't relevant or even rational. Judge Roberts will no doubt be asked not to allow such a circus; we'll get a glimpse into his judicial character if and when that happens. So far, he's been patient, cheerful, and surprisingly perky!
 
I just read the Republicans have got 51 votes to call Biden and the whistleblower.
 
Winston said:
:lol:

Trump should be called to clear his name of this hoax.
Click to expand...

Since it has already been decided that all defendant's rights are erased, as is the Constitution itself, can't see any reason why he can't.

Can't see any reason why people couldn't be tortured until they confess either. A police state is a police state. If that's how we're going to do it, then doing it that way to do it and to do it well. If a police state, the United States should be the most authoritarian and powerful police state in the world as an example to all other countries.

They should start with waterboarding Schiff to learn if he is hiding any exculpatory evidence and if anything he said over those 3 days was not completely true. A CAT Scan polygraph should be done to each too. Then on to each member of the House Impeachment Committee. Democrats go first because the prosecution goes first in legal matters.
 
DiAnna said:
:lol: Every time I think I've heard 'em all, you never fail to deliver!
Click to expand...

that one was cribbed off of an obscure article comment. i have coined at least one of them, though.
 
joko104 said:
Since it has already been decided that all defendant's rights are erased, as is the Constitution itself, can't see any reason why he can't.

Can't see any reason why people couldn't be tortured until they confess either. A police state is a police state. If that's how we're going to do it, then doing it that way to do it and to do it well. If a police state, the United States should be the most authoritarian and powerful police state in the world as an example to all other countries.

They should start with waterboarding Schiff to learn if he is hiding any exculpatory evidence and if anything he said over those 3 days was not completely true. Then on to each member of the House Impeachment Committee. Democrats go first because the prosecution goes first in legal matters.
Click to expand...

Right torture the Democrats until they talk. That's what the Framers intended.
 
Winston said:
Right torture the Democrats until they talk. That's what the Framers intended.
Click to expand...

Since this all is Police State rules, then do police state as the most powerful greatest police state of all. I bet with enough government funding, they could read our minds with a decade - and could implant tiny trackers with microphones into our bodies now, first acclimating us to this by requiring it of parolees, military, and allowing employers to require it.

Do you REALLY need for me to name ALL the ways the Rules Of Evidence, Rules of Court, rules on due process? The requirement to inform any defendant in any matter - civil, criminal, administrative and even in military judge to be informed PRECISELY what offense or wrong doing you are charged all have been erased in this process. Can't just sue someone for "being a bad driver" or prosecute someone for being "an abusive person" - then in trial the prosecution says what that means specifically as a specific civil or criminal offense under law.

It MUST be more specific than just "because you are evil and lots of people you cost them their jobs all say so."

So, a police state. You could pick other words. A totalitarian state. An oligarchy. I think most accurate is a "fascist" state.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
sigh...

Read what I said..."a deliberate and corrupt attempt to attack the President".
Click to expand...

They deliberately made Trump withhold aid from Ukraine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom