• 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 Witnesses or "Face Dictatorship"

Obscurity said:
To the Republicans, Biden -is- relevant. Schiff isn't, but the WB is absolutely also relevant, even if his/her testimony would be a re-hash of other testimony. The only reason they want the WB is to give a face to the enemy. ;)
Click to expand...

Hmmm...and put a target on his back. WBers in general are putting themselves in harms way, especially when the person(s) identified are vindictive. No one can reasonably support exposing the WB, especially when the person exposed is as vindictive as Donald Trump.
 
Harshaw said:
No, they could have voted to dismiss. They didn't.
Click to expand...

1. That could only happen after convening the trial.

2. They made a strategic decision not to given the weight of public opinion, which acknowledges nothing besides caution.

3. They still could.
 
JackA said:
1. That could only happen after convening the trial.

2. They made a strategic decision not to given the weight of public opinion, which acknowledges nothing besides caution.

3. They still could.
Click to expand...

Dude. They're holding the trial. They could have dismissed, but they didn't. Thus, they are explicitly indicating it's "arguably impeachable."

Your, and Tribe's, hysterics about "dictatorship" are exactly that -- hysterics.
 
Wry Catcher said:
Hmmm...and put a target on his back. WBers in general are putting themselves in harms way, especially when the person(s) identified are vindictive. No one can reasonably support exposing the WB, especially when the person exposed is as vindictive as Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal with witnesses.

The Republicans can literally do whatever they want. They can call anyone they want.

So why aren't they?
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. They're holding the trial. They could have dismissed, but they didn't. Thus, they are explicitly indicating it's "arguably impeachable."

Your, and Tribe's, hysterics about "dictatorship" are exactly that -- hysterics.
Click to expand...

Bad logic. Not doing a thing only proves its alternative if there is no other alternative, and here there was, and is.
 
JackA said:
Bad logic. Not doing a thing only proves its alternative if there is no other alternative, and here there was, and is.
Click to expand...

^^^^
That's nonsensical gibberish.
 
They should start construction of a new wing on Leavenworth for all the President's men.
 
Notice that in this first day of questions it appears that the Trump Team has given the floor to Philbin. That should not be a surprise as he is the best they have.
 
jnug said:
Notice that in this first day of questions it appears that the Trump Team has given the floor to Philbin. That should not be a surprise as he is the best they have.
Click to expand...

His current argument is "You can't impeach the president, he has unitary power. The people should kick him out or accept him."

This completely ignores what Trump did.
 
Obscurity said:
His current argument is "You can't impeach the president, he has unitary power. The people should kick him out or accept him."

This completely ignores what Trump did.
Click to expand...

Agreed....but the rest of them on the Trump team are so pitiful as to be utterly useless in this particular format.

Heck of a burden for Philbin but with the exceptions of particular questions that might be a softball for another member of that team, I don't think they have much of a choice.
 
Last edited:
I guess the rest of them on the Trump team are there to hold Philbin's coat.
 
jnug said:
Agreed....but the rest of them on the Trump team are so pitiful as to be utterly useless in this particular format.

Heck of a burden for Philbin but with the exceptions of particular questions that might be a softball for another member of that team, I don't think they have much of a choice.
Click to expand...

Philbin is lying to the Senate's face.

This is ridiculous.
 
Jeffries should have put up the relevant text from the Ceppolle letter regarding Trump's position and lack of an assertion of either actual Executive Privilege or Immunity. They have it as they have already used it once during this Trial.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it was just nonsense.
Click to expand...

I like to be helpful so I'll spell it out. You argued that the Republican majority's decision not to move to dismiss the charges at the outset of the trial was "an explicit acknowledgement" the charges raise a conceivable impeachable offense. That is true only if there is not another plausible explanation for why a motion to dismiss was not made, one that does not necessarily imply such an acknowledgment. And there is another explanation. I explained it. It is that the Republican majority was being respectful of public polling showing a strong majority in favor of a full trial, by yielding to that public opinion. If this was the motivation, as many believe it was, the choice not to move to dismiss carries no certain acknowledgement as to the actual the weight of the charges.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Jeffries should have put up the relevant text from the Ceppolle letter regarding Trump's position and lack of an assertion of either actual Executive Privilege or Immunity. They have it as they have already used it once during this Trial.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz just let the mask slip.

"The president does what he does because he believes it is in the country's best interest."

Basically, he just said; The Republicans don't think it's in the national interest for a democrat to be elected.

That's the case, right there, ladies and gentlemen. That's the final core of this rotten apple.
 
JackA said:
Laurence Tribe, the leading Constitutional scholar from Harvard, mocked Alan Dershowitz's argument on impeachment yesterday as "remarkably absurd" and warned the country that exoneration of Trump will be an invitation to dictatorship.

A question this raises is whether Trump's fawning supporters would actually see his prediction as a warning or more like a satisfactory development. Certainly, a President able to solicit and even coerce foreign interference in and adverse to American internal affairs for his individual benefit, which is what Article I charges, would be above the law, above the country.

Harvard Law Professor Warns Senators: Call Witnesses Or Face ‘Dictatorship’; Laurence Tribe also described Alan Dershowitz’s legal defense of Donald Trump as “remarkably absurd and extreme and dangerous.” : politics
Click to expand...

The house should have called witnesses that was their job.
their inability to do their job is of no consequence to the house.

Tribe is one of the co-founders of the liberal American Constitution Society, the law and policy organization formed to counter the conservative Federalist Society,

tribe is a left wing activist hack.
you should check your sources more thoroughly.
 
Obscurity said:
Dershowitz just let the mask slip.

"The president does what he does because he believes it is in the country's best interest."

Basically, he just said; The Republicans don't think it's in the national interest for a democrat to be elected.

That's the case, right there, ladies and gentlemen. That's the final core of this rotten apple.
Click to expand...

Should have put Philbin back up there again instead of Dersh. That was a typically whacked Dersh argument.
 
jnug said:
Should have put Philbin back up there again instead of Dersh. That was a typically whacked Dersh argument.
Click to expand...

Schiff should be attacking that directly. I like his argument here, but it should have been is this:

"what if the next democrat thinks a republican is bad for the country and orders investigations into all of them?"

That's really the crux of it here - the republicans thinks democrats are bad for the nation.

LOL.
 
JackA said:
I like to be helpful so I'll spell it out. You argued that the Republican majority's decision not to move to dismiss the charges at the outset of the trial was "an explicit acknowledgement" the charges raise a conceivable impeachable offense. That is true only if there is not another plausible explanation for why a motion to dismiss was not made, one that does not necessarily imply such an acknowledgment. And there is another explanation. I explained it. It is that the Republican majority was being respectful of public polling showing a strong majority in favor of a full trial, by yielding to that public opinion. If this was the motivation, as many believe it was, the choice not to move to dismiss carries no certain acknowledgement as to the actual the weight of the charges.
Click to expand...

No, it's true if it's true, and it's true.

“There is almost no interest” among Republican senators for a motion to dismiss the House charges, Republican Senator Roy Blunt told reporters on Monday.

“I will not be supporting a motion to dismiss,” said Republican Senator Mitt Romney. “At this stage, the allegations that have been made are serious and deserve to be given consideration with the arguments for and against.”

Senator Susan Collins, among a handful of Republicans whom Democrats hope to persuade to back their call for witness testimony, told reporters she and a small group of colleagues were discussing a trial format that would allow lawmakers to vote on whether to include witnesses after hearing from each side and having the opportunity to pose questions.

“We’re still talking, and I think the discussions have been going well,” Collins told reporters, saying she strongly favored the approach taken during the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Republican senators say they will not vote to dismiss charges against Trump ahead of trial - Reuters


“That’s dead for practical purposes,” the South Carolina Republican said on on “Fox News Sunday.” “There are a lot of senators, who I think will wind up acquitting the president, that believe that we need to hear the House’s case, the president’s case and ask questions.”

“So the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. We don't have the votes for that," he concluded.
Click to expand...

Graham: Senate GOP doesn’t ‘have the votes’ to dismiss impeachment trial - POLITICO
 
Obscurity said:
Schiff should be attacking that directly. I like his argument here, but it should have been is this:

"what if the next democrat thinks a republican is bad for the country and orders investigations into all of them?"

That's really the crux of it here - the republicans thinks democrats are bad for the nation.

LOL.
Click to expand...

If they have a chance the Dems have to clean up for Jeffries especially after that last Philbin mess about the "accommodations" offer to the House in the letter from Cipellone.

Accommodations within the context of Impeachment are designed to address what the President wants to withhold and what the House would like to get. They can negotiate that out. But the only Accommodation offered in the Cipellone letter asked that the House bend its Impeachment process which is simply not open for discussion. In addition the Cipellone letter called it a "Partisan Impeachment" which does not exist. That was the WH rationalization for no cooperation, no witnesses and no documents. You won't find the term Partisan Impeachment anywhere in the Constitution. The House has 435 members. As such one party will be in the Majority. Are we to take from Cipellone's letter that even the one member that creates a majority for one party also then creates a "Partisan Impeachment"? NONSENSE.

The Cipellone letter offered that there would be no cooperation from from the WH meaning no witnesses of any sort, no documents and no negotiations for same with no accompanying assertion of either Executive Privilege or any actual assertion of Immunity. Tell me which potential witnesses the House wanted were identified as covered by Immunity in the Cipellone letter as in named in the letter.
 
Last edited:
Now this is a totally BS Philbin argument about witnesses. GARBAGE.
 
Again Mr Philbin, neither your team nor Trump himself has asserted Executive Privilege. In fact, they don't want to!

If they assert Executive Privilege, all the documents and all the discussions they have endeavored to keep hidden end up in the hands of a Judge. That Judge then looks at them and in cases where the preponderance of evidence is that they directly bear on the Charges, there is no Executive Privilege. Executive Privilege is not a tool that can be used to cover wrongdoing. Preponderance of evidence in this case means 51%-49%. That is all it takes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom