Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

[sjmay]

Thanks.

So what about what was in the OP which was about documents from the White House, State Department, etc.?

That is something they want the Senate to to do because the House failed to do it's job.

The Republicans are basically saying, you guys brought us a case that you thought was strong enough....so prove it with what you have. And The Democrats are crying about it, because they know it's not strong enough.

 

[tres borrachos]

That is something they want the Senate to to do because the House failed to do it's job.

The Republicans are basically saying, you guys brought us a case that you thought was strong enough....so prove it with what you have. And The Democrats are crying about it, because they know it's not strong enough.

Are you saying the House never wanted WH documents and never wanted anyone from the WH to testify? That isn't how I recall it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Democrats want their witnesses they failed to bring in to the House impeachment and they don't want the witnesses that Trumps team would like to bring and that democrats denied republicans in the House. Liar, hypocrites = Democrats.

 

[JacksinPA]

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. McConnell also said evidence gathered in the House impeachment probe over the fall would be automatically entered into the Senate record, reversing his earlier stance."

The only constant in life is change. I came back from errands & saw on MSNBC Sen. Schumer presenting video of one of Trump's crooks (Mulvaney) in a news conference saying 'we use extortion all the time in diplomacy' (paraphrase). Mulvaney Tells Reporter: ‘Get Over’ Quid Pro Quo: ‘It Happens All The Time’ | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

 

[apdst]

I Googled it and can't find that anywhere, that the Senate is allowing House Dems to present the evidence and witness testimony. Link please? Not saying you made it up, I just can't find it. And does it refute the OP that says "Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials"?

......

The resolution calls for opening arguments to begin Wednesday at 1 p.m. House managers and the president’s counsel will be given 24 hours over three days to argue the case

Live Trump impeachment trial updates: Senate adopts rules

 

[Bullseye]

Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins - The New York Times

Republicans made last-minute changes to their proposed rules to placate moderates, but they held together to turn back Democratic efforts to subpoena documents.

WASHINGTON — A divided Senate began the impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday in utter acrimony, as Republicans blocked Democrats’ efforts to subpoena witnesses and documents related to Ukraine and moderate Republicans forced last-minute changes to rules that had been tailored to the president’s wishes.

In a series of party-line votes punctuating 12 hours of debate, Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials that could shed light on the core charges against Mr. Trump.
====================================================================
How can you have a fair trial when the defendant's lawyers won't permit evidence or witness testimony? This makes the Republicans as well as Trump look more like the crooks they really are?
[paywall - I have a NYT account]

Do us a favor and drop that phony "fair trial" bull****. You're not fooling anyone. You were all copesetic with partisan procedures in the House, well, get used them in the Senate. The Dems have committed a massive FUBAR and now they and you have to live with it. No teary-eyed lying desires for a "fair trial". Live with it.

 

[Moot]

Nonexist crimes. A democratic party who have been trying to impeach for 3 years based on hate and nothing more than falsified records and false claims.

Wrong, the impeachment inquiry started on Sept. 28, 2019...three years after Trump was elected. Frankly, I'm surprised it took that long, too.

It's a fact, according to the GAO, Trump illegally withheld Ukraine funding to benefit himself.....and he put national security at risk when he did it.

 

[sjmay]

Are you saying the House never wanted WH documents and never wanted anyone from the WH to testify? That isn't how I recall it.

No, I am saying the House wanted those things, the defendant/WH challenged their righto access those things, and the House NEVER MOVED FORWARD ON THAT...that is their problem, not the Senate's.

 

[sjmay]

Wrong, the impeachment inquiry started on Sept. 28, 2019...three years after Trump was elected. Frankly, I'm surprised it took that long, too.

It's a fact, according to the GAO, Trump illegally withheld Ukraine funding to benefit himself.....and he put national security at risk when he did it.

You realize that there were 3 previous impeachment inquiries that failed, and that SEVERAL House Democrats vowed to impeach him right? Way before Sept 28th, 2019.

 

[tres borrachos]

No, I am saying the House wanted those things, the defendant/WH challenged their righto access those things, and the House NEVER MOVED FORWARD ON THAT...that is their problem, not the Senate's.

So in other words, no issue calling any of them now and requiring them to testify or give over the documents.

 

[apdst]

Are you saying the House never wanted WH documents and never wanted anyone from the WH to testify? That isn't how I recall it.

.....

According to Roll Call, a provision in the resolution gives Democrats the ability to block key witnesses requested by the White House as the process moves to the House Judiciary Committee, led by chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

Impeachment Resolution Lets Democrats Reject White House Witnesses

 

[sjmay]

So in other words, no issue calling any of them now and requiring them to testify or give over the documents.

Only the fact that they don't have that right to, it's majority rule, just like it was in the House....

Democrats completely done screwed the pooch on this one, and now are crying to get out of it.....

 

[tres borrachos]

Only the fact that they don't have that right to, it's majority rule, just like it was in the House....

Democrats completely done screwed the pooch on this one, and now are crying to get out of it.....

So you don't approve of witnesses and testimony and documents being presented at a trial?

 

[humbolt]

Thanks.

So what about what was in the OP which was about documents from the White House, State Department, etc.?

As far as I know, that's true. The Senate GOP is primarily focused on that which the House deemed sufficient for impeachment. I don't expect dramatic changes to that approach, but some may come further down the line.

 

[sjmay]

So you don't approve of witnesses and testimony and documents being presented at a trial?

I think the CASE needs to be discussed...the CASE that the House brought.....apparently everything needed to impeach the President, was in the case....so that's what you discuss.

 

[ludin]

So you don't approve of witnesses and testimony and documents being presented at a trial?

The house is free to submit all of the witness and testimony and documents that they have.
if they wanted more witnesses and documents then they should have wait for the court hearings and
lawsuits to resolve themselves.

It is not the job of the senate to do the houses job for them.

 

[What if...?]

I think the CASE needs to be discussed...the CASE that the House brought.....apparently everything needed to impeach the President, was in the case....so that's what you discuss.

The "case" is a narrative. A story. A way of looking at a situation.

And from what we saw in the house hearings, all they are going to do is repeat the narrative they have created to cover trump's ass.

I'll ask you. More than one of the witnesses in the house hearings said there is proof of their claims in the records trump won't allow to be released.

They were under oath, were they not?

If those document say no such thing, why haven't they been indicted for perjury?

Should be a slam dunk, right?

 

[tres borrachos]

I think the CASE needs to be discussed...the CASE that the House brought.....apparently everything needed to impeach the President, was in the case....so that's what you discuss.

Yes, and witnesses and documents are part of what is being discussed. Or should be.

 

[rickc]

Well we will just have to see how all this plays out. The majority of Americans want to see witnesses and the doccuments. Republicans want to put the blinders on and get this over as quick as possible.

A majority of Americans support the Senate allowing new evidence in the upcoming impeachment trial for President Trump, according to a new poll.

In a Monmouth University survey released Tuesday, 57 percent of Americans said that new information such as witness testimony should be considered by members of the Senate before they vote whether to remove Trump from office. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said the Senate should consider only what testimony the House previously gathered before voting to impeach.

If trump walks without everyone seeing all the witnesses and doccuments like the senate republicans want how will that effect their reelection? Trump's?

At least the democrats tried. Could help their reelection campaign.

 

[humbolt]

The only constant in life is change. I came back from errands & saw on MSNBC Sen. Schumer presenting video of one of Trump's crooks (Mulvaney) in a news conference saying 'we use extortion all the time in diplomacy' (paraphrase). Mulvaney Tells Reporter: ‘Get Over’ Quid Pro Quo: ‘It Happens All The Time’ | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

What Mulvaney said is true. It's how foreign policy is conducted. I have paid people abroad for information while I worked for the government. It's all quid pro quo. You don't think foreign governments do stuff for ya because they like you, do you? It's all in competing national interests. Anybody who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

 

[apdst]

So you don't approve of witnesses and testimony and documents being presented at a trial?

With the judge's approval. If the judge says no, then the evidence can't be introduced.

If he does approve, the defense gets to see it, before the jury. It's called "discovery".

Guess who the judge is in this trial?

 

[Moot]

Democrats ran the House impeachment, anything they did not do, subpoena's witnesses, documents , and going through the courts to get it done is their fault and their failure.

Waiting for the courts to decide could've taken until mid summer...at the height of the election. The Dems also could've used the Sargent of Arms to get the evidence and witnesses to testify....but that could've led to a gun battle. So in lieu of those two alternatives....the Dems felt confident they had enough evidence to move forward with the impeachment...and they do. It was republicans that said there weren't any fact witnesses, while at the same time refusing to let fact witnesses to testify.

But don't worry...all those fact witnesses that ignored their subpoenas from the House...and there were many....will face contempt charges after the impeachment. It's in the second article for Impeachment.

Anyway...Schiff did an excellent job today of laying out the evidence against Trump...and he didn't even need any witnesses. He was so good in fact, that McConnell had to call for a recess so Trump's lawyers could rethink their opening statements. lol

 

[apdst]

Waiting for the courts to decide could've taken until mid summer...at the height of the election. The Dems also could've used the Sargent of Arms to get the evidence and witnesses to testify....but that could've led to a gun battle. So in lieu of those two alternatives....the Dems felt confident they had enough evidence to impeach Trump...and they do. It was republicans that said there weren't any fact witnesses, while at the same time refusing to let fact witnesses to testify.

Anyway...Schiff did an excellent job today of laying out the evidence against Trump...and he didn't even need any witnesses. He was so good in fact, that McConnell had to call for a recess so Trump's lawyers could rethink their opening statements. lol


Don't worry...all those fact witnesses that ignored their subpoenas from the House...and there were many....will face contempt charges after the impeachment. It's in the second article for Impeachment.

So **** the The Constitution, when it becomes inconvenient to follow The Constitution.

 

[sjmay]

The "case" is a narrative. A story. A way of looking at a situation.

And from what we saw in the house hearings, all they are going to do is repeat the narrative they have created to cover trump's ass.

I'll ask you. More than one of the witnesses in the house hearings said there is proof of their claims in the records trump won't allow to be released.

They were under oath, were they not?

If those document say no such thing, why haven't they been indicted for perjury?

Should be a slam dunk, right?

I didn't see that, can you say who, and quote it? Because if that's the case, then the House should have subpoenaed those records, and fought for them through the courts, why wouldn't they do that? It sounds like gross negligence to me.

 

[sjmay]

Yes, and witnesses and documents are part of what is being discussed. Or should be.

Yes, the witnesses and documents that the House investigated, nothing more, nothing less.

Whose fault is it, if the House did not proceed with trying to get all the witnesses it wanted and documents?