Senate Republicans considering the option of calling no witnesses for impeachment trial

[Condor060]

Like I said above. Go for it. I hope you get what you want. I'd like to see it.

A land with no abortion. Kids are taught jesus myths in school. Taxes are at zero, and the poor are required to rely on the church for charity. The president is a monarch, Democrats are banned. Everyone can have guns, everywhere. Public school gone, no protections for minorities, the ending of hate crimes. A land where there are limited to no pollution controls. A land where corporate entities are relied upon for savings, where social security is gone, there is no unemployment insurance, and healthcare is only handled on an ability to pay basis.

I hope you get it.

Yeah, I get it. Its called deflection.

 

[Condor060]

When all the professionals, every single one that testified, who've worked first hand on Ukraine foreign policy, testifies that they presumed from the Presidents actions, that he was withholding aid for personal gain, you might want to take it seriously.

:shrug:

So If I presume your a rapist along with a few of my friends, then I should be able to get an indictment against you, have you jailed, post a bond, find you guilty, and take 10 years from your life?

Or is that just for Democrats to use?

 

[Condor060]

Except every witness up to this point has testified to the complete opposite.

You really don't think the american public knows this?

Yeah let the corrupt Republicans say "we don't need any witnesses, as we k ow what they're going to say anyway, trump doesn't need to appear under oath as he is clearly innocent. These proceedings are over"

Go ahead, see what happens...

For those who have no clue how the constitution works, its not on the accused to prove anything. If you are so unaware that every witness testified they have no knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quo, or any impeachable crimes, then you are certainly very misinformed. How many Youtube videos would it take to convince you?

The testimony is already in the books and your refusal or lack of knowledge doesn't change anything. None of these Schiff witnesses will even be allowed to testify in a real court room. Hearsay and presumptions are not accepted as evidence. If Democrats don't produce a fact witness then this will be the shortest trial in history.

 

[JackA]

When every witnesses called to testify states under oath that they have no knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quo or any impeachable crimes, and they are only testifying to what they presumed, there isn't any need to call any witnesses for defense.

Pretty simple really.

Witness are not asked their legal opinions on the commission of bribery or the existence of quid pro quo, but on facts within their knowledge, such as whether he or she heard the President ask a foreign leader to investigate the President's then foremost rival for the 2020 election. It is then up to the Senate to decide whether such factal evidence constitutes bribery, quit pro quo, or any other impeachable offense.

 

[Condor060]

Witness are not asked their legal opinions on the commission of bribery or the existence of quid pro quo, but on facts within their knowledge, such as whether he or she heard the President ask a foreign leader to investigate the President's then foremost rival for the 2020 election. It is then up to the Senate to decide whether such factal evidence constitutes bribery, quit pro quo, or any other impeachable offense.

OMG, Really? You thought asking witnesses for evidence is asking them for their legal opinions. Just wow. You should find another thread. This one is way over your head

 

[less right]

It is possible that they don't have any witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that Donald Trump didn't do it. This is an admission that their defense of him is a lie.

They could get Rudy to testify to that but they don't want to chance he'd also let the truth slip out.

 

[VanceMack]

Why should they? Its a sham...a farce...and anyone that isnt a mindless leftist muppet KNOWS it. Hell, even the thinking democrats in the House know it. SO the mindless twats in the house will have the culmination of their 3 year rat part hate orgy and will likely vote to impeach...and then the Senate will throw that **** in the waste bin and the rats will proceed to get destroyed in the coming election.

We should all hope the rats and their idiot leftists supporters think their little hate filled circle jerk was worth the effort.

 

[JackA]

OMG, Really? You thought asking witnesses for evidence is asking them for their legal opinions. Just wow. You should find another thread. This one is way over your head

No, you did. I politely corrected you. If you had manners you would at least have something.

 

[less right]

No, you did. I politely corrected you. If you had manners you would at least have something.

When you're dealing with morons who listen to Gym Jordan say no one answered the question rather than the witness who said it wasn't their job to answer the question, what can you do?

 

[Master Debator]

So If I presume your a rapist along with a few of my friends, then I should be able to get an indictment against you, have you jailed, post a bond, find you guilty, and take 10 years from your life?

Or is that just for Democrats to use?

If a few people blew the whistle and told police officers and prosecutors that they believed I had raped someone, and then testified in court, under oath to that same thing, and then I refuse to testify and all my friends that were there refused to tesitify what would you think. One side provided evidence the other side didn't even mount a defense. No one testified on the presidents behalf. No one came forward to testify that everything was all good. But I have no problem with Republicans signaling to the American people that they can't put 2 and 2 together, such is the sorry state of the religious based education.

:thumbs:

 

[DiAnna]

....why am I not surprised



Republicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial | TheHill

Skipping witnesses in such a high profile case, that seems like an act of political gamesmanship.

There isn't a single witness that can provide exculpatory evidence, and the Senate knows it. They don't dare put on fact witnesses, like Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, etc., because every damned one of them not only has first-hand knowledge that Trump did everything he's accused of doing, but they also have a ****-load of knowledge that he's done even more stuff that nobody knows about... yet.

If they turn it into a circus by calling Hunter Biden, the Whistleblower, or House leadership simply to destroy those witnesses in public, that automatically gives the Democrats the right to subpoena the likes of Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, etc., which the cowardly GOP Senators are NOT going to risk. So they won't allow any witnesses to be called; it's the only safe way for them to go.

 

[Lisa]

They could get Rudy to testify to that but they don't want to chance he'd also let the truth slip out.

Rudy is the last person Trump or the GOP wants to testify in his defense because he would end up being the star witness for the prosecution 30 seconds into the cross-examination. Maybe Vlad will fly to Washington and tell the Senate that he is Trumps best friend and confident and that Donald is complety innocent.

 

[Condor060]

If a few people blew the whistle and told police officers and prosecutors that they believed I had raped someone, and then testified in court, under oath to that same thing, and then I refuse to testify and all my friends that were there refused to tesitify what would you think. One side provided evidence the other side didn't even mount a defense. No one testified on the presidents behalf. No one came forward to testify that everything was all good. But I have no problem with Republicans signaling to the American people that they can't put 2 and 2 together, such is the sorry state of the religious based education.

:thumbs:

If you want to put it into perspective lets get it straight. You would be accused of rape. There isn't a single witness to the event and every witness who testifies says they are just presuming you did it. On top of which the actual victim said you didn't do it. But the prosecutor doesn't care and is having you indicted anyway. Once your indicted you will not be allowed to have your counsel ask any question or cross examine any of their witnesses and none of the witnesses you want heard will be allowed to testify.

Is that what is expected now? Is this the new Democrat law? Is this your idea of a fair hand?

 

[Master Debator]

If you want to put it into perspective lets get it straight.

Alright then.

You would be accused of rape. There isn't a single witness to the event and every witness who testifies says they are just presuming you did it.

This is your first misstep. There are plenty of witnesses who were subpoenaed and who refused to testify. All the ones who did testify said the ones that didn't not only had first hand knowledge but were involved in the crime. If the person charged were anyone but the President, those witnesses wouldn't of been able to ignore a subpoena.

On top of which the actual victim said you didn't do it.

As do plenty of battered women, often times out of fear and dependency. Are you going to pretend this doesn't happen all the time?

But the prosecutor doesn't care and is having you indicted anyway. Once your indicted you will not be allowed to have your counsel ask any question or cross examine any of their witnesses and none of the witnesses you want heard will be allowed to testify.

The Republicans weren't allowed to ask the witnesses questions? That's a lie. As for their witnesses, you mean the Bidens and the people involved in a debunked conspiracy theory? What do those witnesses have to do with this case? Tell me what Hunter Biden would know about Trump holding up military aid for personal use.

Is that what is expected now? Is this the new Democrat law? Is this your idea of a fair hand?

This is my idea of having to explaining basic math to a grown adult.

 

[Craig234]

"political gamesmanship"

At which Republicans are much better than the Dems.

That's not really a compliment.

It's sort of 'better at crime'.

 

[Condor060]

Alright then.

Quote Originally Posted by Condor060
You would be accused of rape. There isn't a single witness to the event and every witness who testifies says they are just presuming you did it.
This is your first misstep.

There are plenty of witnesses who were subpoenaed and who refused to testify. All the ones who did testify said the ones that didn't not only had first hand knowledge but were involved in the crime. If the person charged were anyone but the President, those witnesses wouldn't of been able to ignore a subpoena.

I even forget about the whistle blower who started this. He wasn't even allowed to testify. So now you can add you have an annonomous person claiming you committed the crime and you aren't even allowed to question him. Thanks for reminding me not to mention that you have admitted that every single witness only had hearsay information only and that a president and his cabinet have absolute immunity.

Quote Originally Posted by Condor060
On top of which the actual victim said you didn't do it.

As do plenty of battered women, often times out of fear and dependency. Are you going to pretend this doesn't happen all the time?

Sorry, Zelensky wasn't rapped and he has stated on multiple occasions this never happened.

Quote Originally Posted by Condor060
But the prosecutor doesn't care and is having you indicted anyway. Once your indicted you will not be allowed to have your counsel ask any question or cross examine any of their witnesses and none of the witnesses you want heard will be allowed to testify

The Republicans weren't allowed to ask the witnesses questions? That's a lie. As for their witnesses, you mean the Bidens and the people involved in a debunked conspiracy theory? What do those witnesses have to do with this case? Tell me what Hunter Biden would know about Trump holding up military aid for personal use.

Nobody said anything about Republicans asking questions or the Bidens. Representation means your own counsel and none of the witnesses to include the WB on the Republican list were allowed to testify. As a matter of fact, Schiff even refused to allow the Republicans to have their minority day during the hearing which is required by the hearing protocols.

Quote Originally Posted by Condor060
Is that what is expected now? Is this the new Democrat law? Is this your idea of a fair hand?

This is my idea of having to explaining basic math to a grown adult.

Oh how you would be screaming at the top of your lungs if this was done to Democrats. This is why Trump is leading all the polls right now in the Democrat blue wall states of Pennsylvanian, Wisconsin, Michigan, as well as Florida and Nevada. Voters are not interested in the hypocrisy of the left anymore and they are telling you what they think.

This is why the DNC is broke with 8 million on hand and 20 million in debt.

This is why Trump has raised over 350 million with 61% from voters with $200 or less which is more than double the highest amount raised by any presidential candidate in history.

This is why Biden only has 15 million to run a national campaign

This is why the RNC has over 100 million cash on hand.

Democrats don't even have the money for a convention and since they stiffed Duke Energy for 10 million in Charlotte, they won't be getting any more venues unless they pay up front.

What you are witnessing is the demise of the Democrat party. When you can explain how Trump is leading in these blue wall states during this fake impeachment and the voters donation amounts get back to me.

 

[Master Debator]

I even forget about the whistle blower who started this. He wasn't even allowed to testify. So now you can add you have an annonomous person claiming you committed the crime and you aren't even allowed to question him. Thanks for reminding me not to mention that you have admitted that every single witness only had hearsay information only and that a president and his cabinet have absolute immunity.

To believe that a President and his cabinet have absolute immunity goes against the very core of our government and values. But even besides that, that argument would make Trumps actions even more questionable. If Presidents and their cabinets do have absolute immunity, then wouldn't Obama and Biden be covered under that? If that's the case why is Trump trying to get dirt on a former administration that he himself argues has absolute immunity? I mean is it really too much to ask that your ridiculous arguments be at the very least logically consistent?

:shrug:

Sorry, Zelensky wasn't rapped and he has stated on multiple occasions this never happened.

But Zelensky is dependent on Trump and the U.S. for vital military assistance. That puts him in precarious position. If you can't admit that then you have no intention ig being intellectually honest.

Nobody said anything about Republicans asking questions or the Bidens. Representation means your own counsel and none of the witnesses to include the WB on the Republican list were allowed to testify. As a matter of fact, Schiff even refused to allow the Republicans to have their minority day during the hearing which is required by the hearing protocols.

The original WB had 2nd hand information about the phone call. We had people come in and testify who had 1st hand information about the phone call. What would of been the point? Was that 2nd hand information going to be pertinent than the 1st hand information? Weren't you just complaining about the opposite?

 

[Condor060]

To believe that a President and his cabinet have absolute immunity goes against the very core of our government and values. But even besides that, that argument would make Trumps actions even more questionable. If Presidents and their cabinets do have absolute immunity, then wouldn't Obama and Biden be covered under that? If that's the case why is Trump trying to get dirt on a former administration that he himself argues has absolute immunity? I mean is it really too much to ask that your ridiculous arguments be at the very least logically consistent?

:shrug:

Now things are becoming more clear as to why you don't get it.

From the department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel

OLC opinions bind all executive branch officials with respect to whatever legal issues those opinions resolve.

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

But Zelensky is dependent on Trump and the U.S. for vital military assistance. That puts him in precarious position. If you can't admit that then you have no intention ig being intellectually honest.

Sorry, your opinion (or anyone else's) as to what Zelensky thinks isn't evidence. Its presumption at best.

The original WB had 2nd hand information about the phone call. We had people come in and testify who had 1st hand information about the phone call. What would of been the point? Was that 2nd hand information going to be pertinent than the 1st hand information? Weren't you just complaining about the opposite?

False, EVERY witness testified under Republican questioning they had no knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quo, or any other impeachable crimes. EVERY ONE. And every one of them were testifying to what they presumed. This isn't even a point of contention. Its in the books.

How many Youtube videos would you like to see?

 

[Master Debator]

:shrug:

Now things are becoming more clear as to why you don't get it.

From the department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel



Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

Your confusion stems from putting the opinion of the OLC above the expressed powers written in the Constitution. Hell I don't even see the OLC mentioned in the Constitution.

Sorry, your opinion (or anyone else's) as to what Zelensky thinks isn't evidence. Its presumption at best.

It is absolutely not a presumption to say Zelensky and Ukraine are dependent on Trump and the United States for vital military assistance. That's a fact.

False, EVERY witness testified under Republican questioning they had no knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quo, or any other impeachable crimes. EVERY ONE. And every one of them were testifying to what they presumed. This isn't even a point of contention. Its in the books.

How many Youtube videos would you like to see?

Not false. Some had first hand knowledge of the phone call because they were on it and immediately went to lawyers, I.G.'s and superiors to report what they heard on that phone call.

 

[Condor060]

Your confusion stems from putting the opinion of the OLC above the expressed powers written in the Constitution. Hell I don't even see the OLC mentioned in the Constitution.

So your new theory is, if it isn't in the Constitution, its not recognized as an existing federal law? Just wow. I guess that part of the Constitution giving legislation the power to create laws just flew right over your head.
:failpail:

It is absolutely not a presumption to say Zelensky and Ukraine are dependent on Trump and the United States for vital military assistance. That's a fact.

When did that become a crime?

Not false. Some had first hand knowledge of the phone call because they were on it and immediately went to lawyers, I.G.'s and superiors to report what they heard on that phone call.

Really, show me.

 

[less right]

Once your indicted you will not be allowed to have your counsel ask any question or cross examine any of their witnesses and none of the witnesses you want heard will be allowed to testify.

Is that what is expected now? Is this the new Democrat law? Is this your idea of a fair hand?

Trump hasn't been "indicted" (impeached) yet so that strawman can be dismissed.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's not really a compliment.

It's sort of 'better at crime'.

Yeah. And the Dems 'aren't as good' at it. They still do it, though. They're just not as good as such odiferous activity.