Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

[trouble13]

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?

I dont have a legal background and ild like one of our resident legal eagles to weigh in on this but i dont believe your entirely correct. If im not mistaken, part of discovery is the defense gets to see the complete witness list and they have the right to challenge any witness and the court rules on if the witness is allowed to give testimony or not. In this circumstance it would be up to the senate to decide that since that is the body conducting the trial. Both Trump and the prosecution can ask for any witness they want but its entirely up to the Senate if they will allow it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

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?

A call which he or the President have not offered or produced any evidence whatsoever of ever having happened. Not that it would mean anything anyway. There's no reason we should believe that this isn't just another one of the thousands of other lies he has told since becoming President.

 

[Risky Thicket]

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

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to your inability to understand without getting dinged by the Mods. For people with your comprehension skills, the headline and the subhead of the article contain the word "new". That should be a big clue for you as you read the body of the article. Apparently, the clue wasn't big enough.

Evidence that has already been included, in this case by the House Democrats, is existing evidence. It is evidence that was (past tense) discovered prior to the impeachment. It is evidence that has been and will be used to prosecute their case. All other evidence, evidence that would or could be introduced, is therefore NEW evidence. As an example, testimony from fact witnesses such as Mulvaney, Bolten, Parnas, etc. and documents that heretofore have not been obtained by the House Democrats and therefore have not been introduced would be NEW evidence.

Just to make it a bit easier for you anything that has been introduced is existing evidence. Anything that has not been introduced is NEW evidence. In essence, the Republican Senate has said that testimony and documentation that has not previously existed may not be introduced. NO NEW EVIDENCE.

 

[trouble13]

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...

You have to make the "appropriate" assumptions to get there. If you're unclear on how to define "appropriate" ask a Democrat. They are very eager to tell people how to think.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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.

What crime?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ClaraD]

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.

when there is new evidence it should be heard. If there was evidence that cleared him of wrongdoing, you would want to hear it right? So why not hear the other evidence that might definitively condemn him? We should hear all evidence condenatory or exculpatory.

 

[ClaraD]

I dont have a legal background and ild like one of our resident legal eagles to weigh in on this but i dont believe your entirely correct. If im not mistaken, part of discovery is the defense gets to see the complete witness list and they have the right to challenge any witness and the court rules on if the witness is allowed to give testimony or not. In this circumstance it would be up to the senate to decide that since that is the body conducting the trial. Both Trump and the prosecution can ask for any witness they want but its entirely up to the Senate if they will allow it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

if evidence comes up that is new, it is allowed at trial. There can be objections but the judge rules on whether to allow it or not....usually, they do allow it when it is indeed new evidence.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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?

Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo in a news conference. Where were you? Sleeping?

 

[ClaraD]

What crime?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid | TheHill

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.

The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president’s own agenda.

By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The GAO opinion touched on a matter at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Trump: The decision by the White House to withhold nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Kyiv as it fights off pro-Russian separatists.

 

[DiAnna]

Supposedly, witnesses can be called at the end of the trial after the 16 hours of questions by the senators. Which is totally backwards from a normal trial.

I don't believe this will ever come up for a vote; McConnell will call for a vote to either acquit or dismiss, and it will all be over. Moscow Mitch knows he has 5/6 quivering repubs, who are quite likely to vote for witnesses; he will not let that happen.

 

[trouble13]

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

The remedy is going to court.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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

The impression i have is that after the house makes its case, the senate can decide if they aant to hear from any witnesses and which ones.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[DiAnna]

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.

They did all of that; Trump blocked all the subpoenas and refused to release any documents. Hence, Article 2 of the Impeachment, Obstruction of Congress.

Not really paying much attention to this, are you?

 

[trouble13]

A call which he or the President have not offered or produced any evidence whatsoever of ever having happened. Not that it would mean anything anyway. There's no reason we should believe that this isn't just another one of the thousands of other lies he has told since becoming President.

He gave sworn testimony that it happened. He being soland.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

We have all of the evidence and witness testimony that the House viewed as sufficient for impeachment. Are you saying that Trump was impeached unfairly?

There could be additional evidence beyond that which was considered during the House proceedings.

 

[trouble13]

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to your inability to understand without getting dinged by the Mods. For people with your comprehension skills, the headline and the subhead of the article contain the word "new". That should be a big clue for you as you read the body of the article. Apparently, the clue wasn't big enough.

Evidence that has already been included, in this case by the House Democrats, is existing evidence. It is evidence that was (past tense) discovered prior to the impeachment. It is evidence that has been and will be used to prosecute their case. All other evidence, evidence that would or could be introduced, is therefore NEW evidence. As an example, testimony from fact witnesses such as Mulvaney, Bolten, Parnas, etc. and documents that heretofore have not been obtained by the House Democrats and therefore have not been introduced would be NEW evidence.

Just to make it a bit easier for you anything that has been introduced is existing evidence. Anything that has not been introduced is NEW evidence. In essence, the Republican Senate has said that testimony and documentation that has not previously existed may not be introduced. NO NEW EVIDENCE.

Actially what they have said is that they will decide if any additional evidence is needed after they have heard the case

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

if evidence comes up that is new, it is allowed at trial. There can be objections but the judge rules on whether to allow it or not....usually, they do allow it when it is indeed new evidence.

Absolutely true and in this circumstance that decision falls on the senate to make

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ClaraD]

Absolutely true and in the circumstance that decission falls on the senate to make

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Honestly since Roberts is presiding and he is a judge, I would say that he should make the decision...the Senators are essentially jurors, he is the judge.

 

[trouble13]

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid | TheHill

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the release of security assistance to Ukraine violated the law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.

The independent watchdog said in an opinion issued Thursday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the president’s own agenda.

By doing so, the watchdog concluded, the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The GAO opinion touched on a matter at the center of impeachment proceedings against President Trump: The decision by the White House to withhold nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Kyiv as it fights off pro-Russian separatists.

Ok i wasnt sure if thats what you were referring to or something else. I have said all along that he may of violated that act. Assuming he did, do you really feel that reaches the level of impeachment?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ClaraD]

Ok i wasnt sure if thats what you were referring to or something else. I have said all along that he may of violated that act. Assuming he did, do you really feel that reaches the level of impeachment?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

absolutely, he played with lives, violated the seperations of powers and violated the law...it is certainly more serious than lying under oath about a blow job...and I felt that was impeachable...so why wouldn't this be impeachable?

 

[Mongidig]

Trumps lawyers look like clean cut professionals. The "managers" prosecuting Trump look like the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy. Seriously! How do you take these freaks seriously? At some point the trajectory of the lefts nuttiness is gonna meat up with Antonio Brown. Most of them probably don't have CTE as an excuse.

 

[Moot]

There is no way if I'm the Democrats that I would allow such an exchange. Don't allow the Senate to do the dirty work Ukraine tried so desperately hard to avoid having to do in order get their aid.

The Democrats have laid out more than enough evidence to impeach without witnesses....but several Republican Senators did say they'd like to hear from Bolton. I think those Senators know that the witness and document evidence will eventually come out regardless of the trial...and if they vote not to allow evidence/witnesses that proved the Democrats and House impeachment articles right...they'll pay the price at the voting booth.


After reading the rules...there is allowance for witnesses after the question and debate period. I guess the theory in having them last in the trial, is that it would take time, at least a week to subpoena, depose, debate and vote on each witness before they can testify...and McConnell is probably hoping the Senators will be tired of sitting for so long without talking before it even gets to that point. I dunno...but one thing is for sure...these are not the same senate rules that the Clinton impeachment trial had.

 

[trouble13]

Honestly since Roberts is presiding and he is a judge, I would say that he should make the decision...the Senators are essentially jurors, he is the judge.

In a ctiminal trial you would be correct but this is an impeachment. Its different. Basically the role roberts is there to serve isnt the role of a judge. He is whats known as the presiding officer. In any other impeachment it would be the vice president. His purpose is to be the tiebreaker vote when its 50 to 50. Because its the president they ask the justice to do it to avoid the apperance of a conflict of interest but technically it could be someone who is not a judge in his place

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

absolutely, he played with lives, violated the seperations of powers and violated the law...it is certainly more serious than lying under oath about a blow job...and I felt that was impeachable...so why wouldn't this be impeachable?

If you feel that merits impeachment i respect that but i will tell you its not an unusaul act to be violated. Trump isnt the first to do it and impeachment was never used as remedy in the past.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

A call which he or the President have not offered or produced any evidence whatsoever of ever having happened. Not that it would mean anything anyway. There's no reason we should believe that this isn't just another one of the thousands of other lies he has told since becoming President.

Thanks for a useless post.