• 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!

Should the defense be able to call any witnesses they want to call?

Should the defense be able to call witnesses they want to call?

  • No, only prosecutors and jurors can call witnesses - not the accused

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, as many as the defense team wants

    Votes: 10 100.0%
  • Total voters
    10
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Then ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses about what the prosecution alleges. But not the defendant. The only issues allowed are prosecution issues. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Maybe ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses. But not the defendant. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
Click to expand...

I don't support any witnesses with these riciulous unending time frames dragging this out. That said, I think Joe Biden is fair game if they are going to have them. As well as the whistleblower.
 
Yes, the defense should be able to call witnesses in a trial. One odd thing in an impeachment "trial" is that the jury alone appears to have control over the number of witnesses called (if any) by either the prosecution or the defense as well as whether witness testimony is heard live or in (edited?) transcript form. Obviously, the more witnesses that are called the longer the trial is apt to last - thus the jury (in this setting the entire US Senate) has to remain tied down (much?) longer if they choose allow many (or any) witnesses.
 
joko104 said:
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Then ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses about what the prosecution alleges. But not the defendant. The only issues allowed are prosecution issues. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
Click to expand...

The Senators love to get their mugs on TV, and the longer they drag this out the more smile time they get.
 
In this particular case, it doesn't really matter. There's nothing that's been presented by the democrats that needs to be refuted, so it would be a waste of time.

.
 
joko104 said:
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Then ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses about what the prosecution alleges. But not the defendant. The only issues allowed are prosecution issues. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
Click to expand...

Perhaps posting a civil poll that has reasonable options than something like this

Why not try again?
 
Because the Articles of Impeachment state no crime, calling witnesses has converted the Senate trial to just a poll on the Trump president and/or Trump as a person.

There should be no witnesses because there is not basis for any. The limitation on the relevant topics is limited to the Articles of Impeachment. Since no crime is stated, no evidence or witness can allowed about any crime. Any other evidence or testimony is irrelevant.
 
chuckiechan said:
The Senators love to get their mugs on TV, and the longer they drag this out the more smile time they get.
Click to expand...

They may not like being glued to their seats for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 3, 6, 12 months - or even another week.
 
joko104 said:
They may not like being glued to their seats for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 3, 6, 12 months - or even another week.
Click to expand...

Tough ****. It's their job and they get paid better than the rest of us and have lots of perks. They are not the only ones that have had to endure jury duty.
 
JANFU said:
Perhaps posting a civil poll that has reasonable options than something like this

Why not try again?
Click to expand...

I often feel this way regarding polls. But, the left certainly don't adhere to your suggestion so why should the right? Please link to the polls where you have called the left out for having a partisan troll poll.
 
I would think the three candidates running for President would not want additional witnesses. It prolongs their time having to sit there instead of being on the campaign trail. This only benefits Biden which is perhaps the real agenda of the Dems. Of course if Biden becomes a witness that might bite them in rearend.
 
Moderate Right said:
I often feel this way regarding polls. But, the left certainly don't adhere to your suggestion so why should the right? Please link to the polls where you have called the left out for having a partisan troll poll.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
joko104 said:
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Then ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses about what the prosecution alleges. But not the defendant. The only issues allowed are prosecution issues. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
Click to expand...

You do understand that it is the defense that is against calling witnesses. They have the majority, they can call whoever they want.
 
The defense should certainly be able to call witnesses pertinent to the case. If they want to call Biden or the whistleblower let them. So long as the "prosecution" gets Bolton, Trump, Giuliani, etc.
 
joko104 said:
Or is it only anti-Trump witnesses the Democrats and "the jurors" want to hear?

Then ALL trials should be this way. The prosecution gets whatever witnesses they want. After only hearing prosecution witnesses, the jurors may want to hear other witnesses about what the prosecution alleges. But not the defendant. The only issues allowed are prosecution issues. The defendant has no due process rights whatsoever - none.
Click to expand...

Both sides should, so long as the witness has anything to do with the case. I am not sure how people like Hunter Biden are relevant outside of conspiracy theories. But if they want their case to fall flat, then please, call Hunter.
 
JANFU said:
Not what I stated
Click to expand...

I asked you to post links to where you have called out lefties for the very same thing you called out the OP for and your replied, "Nope".
 
Moderate Right said:
I asked you to post links to where you have called out lefties for the very same thing you called out the OP for and your replied, "Nope".
Click to expand...

You asked me to do something and I refused.
 
Ikari said:
The defense should certainly be able to call witnesses pertinent to the case. If they want to call Biden or the whistleblower let them. So long as the "prosecution" gets Bolton, Trump, Giuliani, etc.
Click to expand...

Defendents aren't required to testify. Just how much of The Constitution do you want to ignore?
 
In every courtroom in America, witnesses must be relevant to the trial complaint(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom