Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

[sjmay]

We are saying that new evidence has been revealed since the vote to impeach and there are requested witnesses that have refuse to testify. Are you saying that new evidence is a no no in this special case? By special case I mean that Republicans have already declared him innocent with no defense by Trump or his attorneys.

The House made their case on the evidence they had....the Senate's job...is to evaluate THAT CASE...it's not the job of the Senate to STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN that case....

 

[Moot]

Let's see, in the House, the Democrats would not let the Republicans call any witnesses that they wanted, only with Democrat approval. So now, the Democrats want to call witnesses in the Senate, even though they already did that in the House, and they are not in charge in the Senate, but for some reason think that they can make the rules there too. The House Democrats now want to run the Senate's part of the impeachment. That's unconstitutional.

We need to defend the Constitution, again, from these Democrats. First, they run an unfair impeachment in the House, now they wish to further damage the Constitution by disobeying it in the Senate. And, get this, they claim to be defending the Constitution!

We need to defend the Constitution from Trump. That's the whole point of impeachment.

The only witness that republicans wanted to call was Hunter Biden. But what would he know about Trump putting pressure on Zelensky to investigate him and his father. What would he know about Trump withholding military funding until he got that investigation? Did he know that Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani was cohorting and conspiring with con men and former corrupt Ukraine officials to fabricate false evidence to fire the ambassador? Did he know that Trump was secretly conspiring to get Ukraine to interfere in the US election to help his re-election? The answer is no.

Iow...Hunter Biden is not a fact witness to the impeachment...he wasn't in "the loop"... and that's why the Dems rejected him as a witness. Republicans knew the rules and they got the same amount of time and opportunity to call and question the relevant witnesses that the Democrats did. And then there's Devin Nunes, knowing the whole time that the Biden conspiracy was fake, while he tried to undermine the impeachment inquiry. His days are numbered.

 

[Risky Thicket]

They are, they are absolutely letting the defendant's laywers submit evidence and witness testimony from the House investigation......what's the problem with that?

NEW evidence. Read the OP with your eyes and mind open. Not evidence but rather, NEW evidence

 

[sjmay]

NEW evidence. Read the OP with your eyes and mind open. Not evidence but rather, NEW evidence

Again, not the Senate's problem that the HOUSE jumped the gun.....their job is to evaluate and judge the CASE that the HOUSE brought them.....

 

[Atomic Kid]

Would it really matter? Seriously, all 17 of the witnesses that testified, said quid pro quo didn't happen, they didn't have any evidence of that, or bribery, and you guys still moved forward....

That's why it's innocent until proven guilty.....how in the hell does Trump provide a document of something that wasn't done?

Think about that, everyone is saying, well just let people testify if there is nothing to hide, when you don't ****ing believe the testimony that you ALREADY HAVE.

But there's more, you think there will be documents proving Trump's innocence, how the **** does that even work? Look here....there's ZERO emails about this...therefore he must be innocent...right?

Are you okay? You seem to be experiencing a different kind of reality than anyone else whom actually listened to that testimony. There are emails about this and contemporaneous notes about this that are being withheld. The documents exist, they know their filing #'s and every Senator in there knows that they exist.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Again, not the Senate's problem that the HOUSE jumped the gun.....their job is to evaluate and judge the CASE that the HOUSE brought them.....

That's a different argument. The OP clearly states NEW evidence. You responded to evidence, not NEW evidence. There is a major difference. Get your **** together if you are serious.

 

[Michael Cole]

What do you mean by good faith?
What are they doing or not doing that is an act of bad faith?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Lying for starters. Nunez not recusing himself. Basically, impeding every effort to get at the truth.

 

[ClaraD]

Why do we need more, did the House Democrats jump the gun, not prove their case? Why?

who said that at trial you cannot call more witnesses? Can you point out where in the law that it says after a Grand Jury indictment no more witnesses can be called?

 

[Bullseye]

And there is and the President's lawyers are doing little to nothing in refuting it. But that doesn't mean that the American people don't want hear from the people that had firsthand role in it. And really what better way would there be to put end to it once and for all than to bring these witnesses forward so they can unequivocally state that nothing of the sort happened. Unless of course there is a concern that they won't be able to do so if placed under oath.

Sorry, that argument doesn't move me.

 

[sjmay]

That's a different argument. The OP clearly states NEW evidence. You responded to evidence, not NEW evidence. There is a major difference. Get your **** together if you are serious.

Might want to read it again, it does not.

The article might, but behind a paywall, I won't see it.

 

[sjmay]

who said that at trial you cannot call more witnesses? Can you point out where in the law that it says after a Grand Jury indictment no more witnesses can be called?

Can I point out that this isn't a LEGAL trial? Just curious.

 

[sjmay]

Are you okay? You seem to be experiencing a different kind of reality than anyone else whom actually listened to that testimony. There are emails about this and contemporaneous notes about this that are being withheld. The documents exist, they know their filing #'s and every Senator in there knows that they exist.

I've read the testimony transcripts, not one person has said, they have evidence of quid pro quo, of bribery, of any illegal act. Not one of the 17 have said that...

 

[ClaraD]

Can I point out that this isn't a LEGAL trial? Just curious.

doesn't matter, you guys are arguing that there has to be a crime to impeach him...he committed a crime when he withheld the aid, but it is interesting you overlook that.

 

[ClaraD]

I've read the testimony transcripts, not one person has said, they have evidence of quid pro quo, of bribery, of any illegal act. Not one of the 17 have said that...

then you didn't read enough....in fact the 1 million dollar Ambassador testified exactly to that....and we have yet to hear from Parnas who wants to testify.

 

[sjmay]

doesn't matter, you guys are arguing that there has to be a crime to impeach him...he committed a crime when he withheld the aid, but it is interesting you overlook that.

I'm not arguing that at all,

I'm saying that the Senate should be judging the case the HOUSE made with the evidence they voted on.....their job is to judge that, not weaken it, not strengthen it,

You want to hear witnesses, you heard from 17, bring them in.....but that's the case that the House made......that's what should be judged.

 

[Bullseye]

then you didn't read enough....in fact the 1 million dollar Ambassador testified exactly to that....and we have yet to hear from Parnas who wants to testify.

You mean the one how said Trump told him "I don't what anything . . ."? And answered "no" when asked if he had direct knowledge of any quid pro quo?

 

[sjmay]

then you didn't read enough....in fact the 1 million dollar Ambassador testified exactly to that....and we have yet to hear from Parnas who wants to testify.

Really? He did? I know you listen for talking points, but please point out the testimony that Sondland had, that states he has EVIDENCE of a quid pro quo, EVIDENCE of bribery, EVIDENCE of any illegal act.

I can wait.

 

[SDET]

How can you have a fair trial when the defendent is charged with non-existant crimes?

By dismissing the charges.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Might want to read it again, it does not.

The article might, but behind a paywall, I won't see it.

Here you go, bud:

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.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I've read the testimony transcripts, not one person has said, they have evidence of quid pro quo, of bribery, of any illegal act. Not one of the 17 have said that...

Really? Wake up and smell the coffee for crying out loud.

 

[sjmay]

Here you go, bud:

Appreciate that, please BOLD the word new in that excerpt.....

 

[sjmay]

Really? Wake up and smell the coffee for crying out loud.

LOL again, not what I said,

You know what his CONFIRMATION WAS.....WELL HELL, EVERYONE KNEW IT....

Ok fine, everyone knew it, please prove it.....do you have direct knowledge....no, do you have direct knowledge of bribery...no....any illegal act...no....

Why do you only use one clip of testimony and ignore the rest?

 

[trouble13]

Lying for starters. Nunez not recusing himself. Basically, impeding every effort to get at the truth.

Nunez isn't a senator, what fo you want him yo recuse himself from?

I get the feeling that your gonna call opinions that you don't like lies, but i will bite and ask what lies.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Nickyjo]

No, I'm not missing the point, the point is, the House chose not to pursue the remedy they had available to them.....

What was the remedy? They called witnesses, requested documents. Trump blocked them as much as he could. Or are we talking past one another?

 

[Moot]

Schiff clarified this last night to note that at that time the senate can debate whether to allow witnesses to give testimony before the senate body
53/47 would not be a bad prediction to anticipate the (un)likelihood of witness testimony

And then there's Susan Collins and a few other Republicans demanding at the last minute that McConnell change the rules to admit House evidence into the trial record or he wouldn't have their votes to pass the rules.

"...Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) needs 51 votes to pass the rules and Republicans have 53 seats.

The rules resolution initially only gave both parties two days to make opening arguments and did not automatically admit House evidence into the trial record.

But a group of GOP senators, including Collins, took issue with the provisions during a closed-door lunch. They were subsequently changed to give both sides three days and to have House evidence included in the trial record..."

Collins breaks with GOP on attempt to change impeachment rules resolution | TheHill​

Look how he scribbled the changes in...making it difficult to read...

READ: Mitch McConnell updates resolution on rules for Senate impeachment trial - CNNPolitics​

It doesn't make much sense to me...but at the bottom of the senate trial rules it mentions that witnesses may be called after the 16 hour question and/or debate period...but not that they will.

Not sure, but I think the senators can still vote on a motion to change the rules during the trial. But don't quote me on that either. lol