• 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!

GOP confident of win on witnesses

Captain Adverse said:
(sigh) I'm surprised at you.

In the first place, if the House wanted to reveal "hidden truths," the time was during the House Impeachment Investigation. For example, if they really believed either Bolton or anyone else had some important evidence, then they should have forced the issue in the Court. Recall, both the Nixon effort and the Clinton Impeachment process each took years, not months.

In the second place, IMO even if Bolton is speaking absolute truth, i.e. aid was contingent on Ukraine investigating Biden, where is the proof the design was to influence the election as opposed to simply investigating corruption? In other words, your are presuming "bad motive" based on your personal bias against Trump, when Trump is pretty open about most of his motives especially when it comes to foreign aid.

Meanwhile, it is also (IMHO) hypocritical to dismiss real issues (raised back when Biden was VP) of both corruption and conflict of interest which led to an openly bragged about "quid or quo," while at the same time condemning Trump for alleged corrupt purpose "quid pro quo."

I personally don't see his actions designed to "influence the election" as more to satisfy his own concerns about both "CrowdStrike," and Biden/Burisma corruption. Also, why should Biden be "immune" when Trump himself wasn't back in 2015/16?
Click to expand...
Captain, you're producing a ton of argument here, but none adequately addresses the issue of withholding witnesses or documentary evidence from the trial and the public purview. I hear a lot of complaints about a lot of things, but none I see as to why the first person witnesses & evidence should not be presented.
 
Airyaman said:
"Let's high-five our effort to run a TRUE sham trial"

MAGA!
Click to expand...

Yes it is another Trump historic milestone and another feather for Putin's cap. We now hold trials without any witnesses and acquit obviously guilty men because they are are "more equal than others".
 
Chomsky said:
No one is removing Trump via the Senate. And if you want Trump to be removed via electorate, the electorate needs to be informed. And informed electorate is the first tenet of democracy.
Click to expand...
It worked in 2016.
Chomsky said:
I'm not sure we all realize what's going on here. Trump is being given free reign to go out and influence the upcoming election in any way he chooses. He found he can be fully ignorant of Congress, and now he is soon to be impeachment-poof. This is some very, very, dangerous stuff. Especially with Trump. Because the moment McConnel swings the gavel, Trump will double down on fixing the upcoming election in even further ways than we can imagine.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this "free reign" concept. Oh, and it wasn't him that forced this ****-show impeachment. Trump will influence this coming election just as he influenced the 2016, by being attuned to the needs and desires of the people and doing his damnedest to deliver. Dems ought to give it a try sometime. But they won't.
 
Drawdown said:
TheWH did not waive EP that is why the book is at the WH right now and no he cannot testify if he is hell bent on it because he does not control the Senate.
Click to expand...
Something is either EP or it's not. The WH has known for almost two months about those passages and have yet to raise an objection. If they try it now it will only further support that they are using EP as means to block testimony/evidence they understand to be harmful to their defense.

If Trump wanted to stop Bolton from saying these things, HE should have assert EP and gone to court to stop him. Now, that ship has sailed.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah, they were so confident that Moscow Mitch wanted to DISALLOW them. Keep on drinking the Koolaid.
Click to expand...


If my rather benign O/P comment, "So we shall see" causes you so much discomfort, you might want to take a chill pill.
 
trixare4kids said:
Not sure you are correct as Don McGahn is also a former Trump employee and is still kept at bay by executive privilege.
Click to expand...
They did not claim executive privilege for McGahn.

What they assert on McGahn's behalf is that he can't be sued to force his testimony - which is the opposite of what they argued at Trump's trial.
 
MovingPictures said:
Something is either EP or it's not. The WH has known for almost two months about those passages and have yet to raise an objection. If they try it now it will only further support that they are using EP as means to block testimony/evidence they understand to be harmful to their defense.

If Trump wanted to stop Bolton from saying these things, HE should have assert EP and gone to court to stop him. Now, that ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

Two months ago they had no reason to raise an objection :doh
 
Chomsky said:
How is hiding the truth from the People good?

No, I disagree with you. This whole thing (Ukraine) has specifically been to illegally influence the upcoming election. And this is more of the same. More. Not less. Democracy dies without transparency. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

That's why when Bolton's book comes out the Democrats will be vindicated and the Republicans will have played hell, as independents will NOT forgive them for trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
 
Chomsky said:
Captain, you're producing a ton of argument here, but none adequately addresses the issue of withholding witnesses or documentary evidence from the trial and the public purview. I hear a lot of complaints about a lot of things, but none I see as to why the first person witnesses & evidence should not be presented.
Click to expand...

Only because you refuse to see the argument I have been posting over and over.

1. A trial is where you present evidence, not fish for it.

2. The defendant has nothing to prove, that burden rests with the prosecution. Yet your side argues that once accused the burden shifts to the defendant, who must perforce supply evidence for YOUR case.

3. Your argument is for having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand the argument is "this is not a real Court so the rules don't apply." On the other "This is a trial so the rules do apply...when we want them to."

No. If the prosecution wants to present evidence, then they should have it ready for presentation, or waited until a thorough investigation uncovered it.

Meanwhile, and for the umpteenth time, I support a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not guilty and we'll find evidence to prove it eventually...so BURN the witch! :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
Democrats shouldn't send any Republican controlled Congress a single piece of paper or witness ever again.

Make them go through a lengthy review process that stretches out all the appeals, and wait years to get anything during their witch hunts.

That will starve FOX news when a Democrat is in the WH.
Click to expand...

Yes it is quite a precedent and there are more. Just wait until our next President takes billions from the defense budget to advance green energy technology. Unlike Immigration, climate change really is a national security issue.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Only because you refuse to see the argument I have been posting over and over.

1. A trial is where you present evidence, not fish for it.

2. The defendant has nothing to prove, that burden rests with the prosecution. Yet your side argues that once accused the burden shifts to the defendant, who must perforce supply evidence for YOUR case.

3. Your argument is for having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand the argument is "this is not a real Court so the rules don't apply." On the other "This is a trial so the rules do apply...when we want them to."

No. If the prosecution wants to present evidence, then they should have it ready for presentation, or waited until a thorough investigation uncovered it.
Click to expand...
Trials subpoena new evidence all the time.

Lewinsky was not called by the House until they took their case to trial in the Senate.

Your rules are conveniently arbitrary.
 
MovingPictures said:
No, it's not.

That's why when Bolton's book comes out the Democrats will be vindicated and the Republicans will have played hell, as independents will NOT forgive them for trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
Click to expand...
Well, at least one could hope.

I'm not sure most of our fellow citizens are that savvy or interested in reading a book. But they are more likely to listen to a first-person witness at an impeachment trial, even if only through soundbites on the evening news. That is exactly what McConnel is depriving us of.
 
Drawdown said:
Two months ago they had no reason to raise an objection :doh
Click to expand...
Um, if what Bolton says is executive privilege then how can they allow him to put these conversations in a book? They knew what he intended to say about his conversations with Trump, so clearly it's not about executive privilege, but instead using it block incriminating testimony.
 
Power for power's sake. This is the faction warned against.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, at least one could hope.

I'm not sure most of our fellow citizens are that savvy or interested in reading a book. But they are more likely to listen to a first-person witness at an impeachment trial, even if only through soundbites on the evening news. That is exactly what McConnel is depriving us of.
Click to expand...
The headline: "First impeachment trial without witnesses and evidence!" has a ring to it.

Just not a good one.
 
Airyaman said:
"Let's high-five our effort to run a TRUE sham trial"

MAGA!
Click to expand...

That about it! Hide the dirt, dummy up the witnesses, anything their dear king wants, they don't mind being servants to their new Savior.
 
Mr Person said:
Power for power's sake. This is the faction warned against.
Click to expand...
What's really sad is that McConnell has gotten more down with 51-53 senators than Democrats ever did with 60.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Only because you refuse to see the argument I have been posting over and over.

1. A trial is where you present evidence, not fish for it.
:
Click to expand...

Actually, new witnesses that come forward can be heard depending on the circumstances. Why, I just wrote a brief where a witness came forward during trial and was allowed to testify; they hadn't been hidden.

Criminal analogies don't apply but if they did, it bears noting that the authorities do not simply stop investigating once a prosecutor gets an indictment.
 
Chomsky said:
And here's where democracy dies ...
Click to expand...

And to think of could have been but for that Goddamn Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Rules of Court. Anything you can imagine. :)
 
MovingPictures said:
Um, if what Bolton says is executive privilege then how can they allow him to put these conversations in a book? They knew what he intended to say about his conversations with Trump, so clearly it's not about executive privilege, but instead using it block incriminating testimony.
Click to expand...

They have not approved the book yet so they did not let him do anything and Trump has also indicated that he may block his testimony on national security grounds
 
Captain Adverse said:
Only because you refuse to see the argument I have been posting over and over.

1. A trial is where you present evidence, not fish for it.

2. The defendant has nothing to prove, that burden rests with the prosecution. Yet your side argues that once accused the burden shifts to the defendant, who must perforce supply evidence for YOUR case.

3. Your argument is for having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand the argument is "this is not a real Court so the rules don't apply." On the other "This is a trial so the rules do apply...when we want them to."

No. If the prosecution wants to present evidence, then they should have it ready for presentation, or waited until a thorough investigation uncovered it.

Meanwhile, and for the umpteenth time, I support a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not guilty and we'll find evidence to prove it eventually...so BURN the witch! :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Thread post winner.
:applaud

It looks to me that some are being poor sports about all this not unlike how they were upon learning Trump really did win the election fairly and squarely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom