Would you like to see them? Would you like to hear the testimony? would you like to hear the call?

[KLATTU]

And you might have a point if Trump had ever asserted executive privilege but his administration did not, they claimed "absolute immunity" which has NO basis in law. ...

half true.

No court has ever accepted the absolute immunity argument, to my knowledge. Only one court has ruled directly on it, and that was in the George W. Bush administration. Committee on Judiciary v. Miers 575 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2008) addressed a House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Harriet Miers, former Counsel to President Bush, seeking to compel her to produce documents and to appear and testify about the forced resignation of U.S Attorneys, and that court ruled against the White House. In the Harriet Miers case, federal district judge John Bates stated “there is no judicial support whatsoever” that a president’s advisers have absolute immunity from testimony, and that such a view “would eviscerate Congress’ historical oversight function.” But the case was settled and has no precedential value, except in Bates’ court. I think the opinion is of some significance, however, because Bates was a Bush appointee and in general a strong supporter of executive privilege.
Trump Impeachment, Executive Immunity and Privilege
so we have only one case and that that was settled before it was appealled.

 

[bongsaway]

Imagine if those accused of a crime had the ability to block any evidence or witnesses they deemed harmful to being presented at trial.

I don't have to imagine it, I'm watching it on a daily basis.

 

[bongsaway]

All one has to do is ask themselves why wouldn't trump, if he's innocent like he claims, not want these witnesses to testify to his innocence?

But no, the right will say, he doesn't have to prove his innocence. The house impeachment inquiry in my mind came up with more than enough evidence to impeach him and they did. So why not now come forward with your witnesses to exonerate you?

Because there are none. As sondland said, everyone was in the loop. Trump and the folks around him are all guilty.

 

[Master Debator]

Better to say that the Democrats have thrown a mountain of opinions, suppositions, interpretations, presumptions, hearsay, and not one single solitary FACTUAL piece of evidence. Otherwise they would have charged actual crimes they keep claiming occurred.

Again, these are not criminal proceedings. If the House did charge Trump with a crime and the Senate convicted him, he would not go to jail. He's charged with abusing his power by holding congressionally approved military aid in exchange for personal political favors and obstruction of Congress and towards that end they have plenty of testimony from white house and state department officials.

Meanwhile there was FACTUAL EVIDENCE presented by the Democrat's star witness Sondland arguing for acquittal. He admitted that when he asked the President what he wanted, the response was: "I want nothing, no quid pro quo, I just want Ukraine to do the right thing on their own." Then Sondland also admitted that despite this he simply "presumed" the President meant that he DID want a quid pro quo. :doh

Donald Trump can claim anything he wants. Very few people caught of wrongdoing confess or spell out the schemes. The question isnt what he said, Nixon denied wrongdoing as well, the question is what did he do? He asked Zelensky to do him a favor. An hour later the OMB puts a freeze on aid at the Presidents direction. People at the State Dept. are scrambling trying to figure out what's going and they all come to the conclusion that Trump is holding up the aid for political and personal reasons and has Trump credibly explained why the aid was held up? Has he allowed the OBM to? No. He's stonewalled all efforts to figure out why these events happened.

Wrong again. The President's defense is that of any other person's when charged with any offense, regardless of venue. Innocent until proven guilty, i.e. I did nothing wrong, you must prove otherwise.

Again, this is not a criminal court. The Senate and the American people want an explanation.

Now you can argue that "this is a political trial so the President must prove his innocence," but that is a wholly partisan way of looking at this. It turns the foundation of our justice system on it's head...burden shifting from proof of guilt to proof of innocence.

We are not dealing with the justice system, this is Congresional oversite. He's not being accused of a crime but mis-use of the office of the President to which oversite falls to Congress and ultimately the people per the constitution.

That may be how your kangaroo Court of Public Opinion (i.e. "Witch Hunt") thought process works, but that is not how justice works regardless of how you choose to characterize these proceedings.

This will be judged in court of public opinion, not just Trump but these Republican Senators and how they vote as well.

 

[Fishking]

He would take over the trial how? By acting like an imbecile and refusing to answer any questions?

Whether you like him or hate him, no one can deny that Trump is always the center of attention in anything he does. He would go there and turn it into a campaign rally and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

 

[Fishking]

let's find out.

We'll see if that even happens but Trump would turn it into a campaign rally for himself. Like him or hate him, he's always the center of attention.

 

[What if...?]

NO "defendant" can be compelled to testify against himself.

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Trump is not the government. Nor does it belong to him because he's president.

He is not the State department or the OMB or any of those things.

They do not exist to provide cover for his personal screwups.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Trump is not the government. Nor does it belong to him because he's president.

He is not the State department or the OMB or any of those things.

They do not exist to provide cover for his personal screwups.

Non sequitur.

Try again. :coffeepap:

 

[What if...?]

Imagine if those accused of a crime had the ability to block any evidence or witnesses they deemed harmful to being presented at trial.

Have somebody at all the cops' and prosectutors' meetings. Somebody along to supervise all raids, telling the officers what they can and can't search.

It really is amazing if you think about it.

Which explains why trump supporters don't see any problem with it.

 

[less right]

NO "defendant" can be compelled to testify against himself.

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

What was it Trump said about people who invoke the 5th?

 

[What if...?]

What would happen is he would take over the trial while answering no questions. It wouldn't work out the way you think it would.

He would almost certainly perjure himself if he went under oath.

Probably more than once.

 

[Helix]

We'll see if that even happens but Trump would turn it into a campaign rally for himself. Like him or hate him, he's always the center of attention.

When you have a crowd of duped fools in front of you, you can do anything. At least, that's what I heard.

 

[gdgyva]

More like....

There is enough evidence as it is, but if you are not convinced and want even more corroborating evidence, it's right there for you to look at and ask for.

So if you plan to vote to acquit because Dems did not convince you, all you have to do is request such and such documents and call these additional witnesses to get even more evidence...

Pretending like House-collected evidence is not enough while refusing to look at more evidence that is blocked by White House (thus, Obstruction of Congress) is just pure Republican BS. But we know that's the way it's gonna go.

no

what you have is not enough....you know it....we know it....the whole damn world knows it

that is why there is a PUSH to try and make the senate call the witnesses that Pelosi failed to get called in the house proceedings....why did she fail? because she was in a hurry to get the "impeached" tag on Trump....well, it is there....and what does that mean....

absolutely nothing....it will affect nothing....it will not prevent him from being reelected in November no matter how much bitching and screaming Pelosi and Schumer and the rest do....

evidence....real evidence wins over....not the crap put on display so far....and you dont bring a case UNTIL YOU HAVE IT

 

[What if...?]

Non sequitur.

Try again. :coffeepap:

You extended the fifth amendment to every executive branch department he is in charge of.

I do not believe that's what the founders intended.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He would almost certainly perjure himself if he went under oath.

Probably more than once.

Three times every four minutes minimum.

 

[Fishking]

When you have a crowd of duped fools in front of you, you can do anything. At least, that's what I heard.

So all of the left media are duped fools? Interesting observation and I can't say I disagree with you.

 

[Bullseye]

Adam (pencil neck) Schifty Shiff is making the case, time after time, for Senators to demand NOTES, CALL RECORDS and TESTIMONY.

"Would you like to hear the testimony? I would like to present it; It's there, at the White House, all you have to do is ask for it.
Would you like to see that document? I would like to present it; It's there, at the White House, all you have to do is ask for it.
Would you like to see the call record? I would like to present it; It's there, at the White House, all you have to do is ask for it."

Adam Schiff is an AmeriCAN Hero!

Why didn't he do it when he was in charge? Wasn't he a prosecutor once? He should know how to build a case.

 

[Helix]

So all of the left media are duped fools? Interesting observation and I can't say I disagree with you.

I don't waste time on I know you are but what am I.

 

[Fishking]

I don't waste time on I know you are but what am I.

So you're saying that Trump hasn't taken over the left media and lives in their heads and minds 24/7? Interesting.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Why didn't he do it when he was in charge? Wasn't he a prosecutor once? He should know how to build a case.

:roll:

Apparently you missed today's statement from pResident tRump. He threatened ALL Senators that he would tie up any subpoenas in court with everything available to him; confirming that second Article of Impeachment, Obstruction. As you point out Representative Schiff was a prosecutor, he knew tRUmp would tie up any requests to the White House, so they countered with the Second Article.

 

[Helix]

So you're saying that Trump hasn't taken over the left media and lives in their heads and minds 24/7? Interesting.

The impeached idiot king has effectively divided the networks.

 

[Bullseye]

:roll:

Apparently you missed today's statement from pResident tRump. He threatened ALL Senators that he would tie up any subpoenas in court with everything available to him; confirming that second Article of Impeachment, Obstruction. As you point out Representative Schiff was a prosecutor, he knew tRUmp would tie up any requests to the White House, so they countered with the Second Article.

So, the answer is Schiff was afraid of Trump? Funny thing is that the defensive against the second article is "why didn't you take it to court"?

 

[Athanasius68]

:roll:

Apparently you missed today's statement from pResident tRump. He threatened ALL Senators that he would tie up any subpoenas in court with everything available to him; confirming that second Article of Impeachment, Obstruction. As you point out Representative Schiff was a prosecutor, he knew tRUmp would tie up any requests to the White House, so they countered with the Second Article.

Ok-- the House abused its power of impeachment.

 

[Lisa]

subpoena Tweety, and get him under oath.

Pigs would fly before that would happen.

I'd choose John Bolton, Fiona Hill, and Sondland testifying under oath.

 

[Slavister]

what you have is not enough....you know it....we know it....the whole damn world knows it

:lamo You have to keep repeating that to believe it, don't you? Whole damn world knows that phone call transcript by itself was enough, let alone all the other evidence that have come out.

that is why there is a PUSH to try and make the senate call the witnesses that Pelosi failed to get called in the house proceedings..

Nope, the push for it is just to once again expose not just Trump but Republicans that support him. Because if Republicans say "we want to see these witnesses" and witnesses confirm what we all know already, it will make it that much harder for Republican Senators to give Trump favorable vote. And if Republicans refuse to call witnesses, it will just expose their motives for not even wanting to know the truth.

Why don't you tell us what Republicans are afraid of in calling Bolton and Mulvaney? Since President is so innocent, and even if he is not, they both like President, would not they just concur with President story and exonerate him? Imagine such a huge blow to Dem case when the witnesses they ask for go ahead and blow a huge hole in their case! Would not that be wonderful for Republicans? They can prove to the world what a witch hunt this all is, right?

So, why aren't Republicans pushing for these witnesses?