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

[Irwin Corey]

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!

 

[joko104]

Prosecutor to Judge: "Your Honor, I'm certain there must be evidence in the Defendant's lawyer's case file. We don't have a case without it. I want an order for the Defense lawyer's case file and his notes of talking to his client."

I can predict the judge's ruling on that one: "No, of course not."

 

[Helix]

subpoena Tweety, and get him under oath.

 

[Slavister]

Prosecutor to Judge: "Your Honor, I'm certain there must be evidence in the Defendant's lawyer's case file. We don't have a case without it. I want an order for the Defense lawyer's case file and his notes of talking to his client."

I can predict the judge's ruling on that one: "No, of course not."

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.

 

[Captain Adverse]

subpoena Tweety, and get him under oath.

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

No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

 

[Lutherf]

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

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

You're assuming that the Constitution is there to protect individual rights. In Democrat world it's there merely because they ran out of Charmin.

 

[Helix]

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

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Cool, let Tweety McImpeachypeach plead the fifth.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Schiff is the bestie of the American people.

The President has no 5th Amendment right in an impeachment trial.

 

[Excast]

Prosecutor to Judge: "Your Honor, I'm certain there must be evidence in the Defendant's lawyer's case file. We don't have a case without it. I want an order for the Defense lawyer's case file and his notes of talking to his client."

I can predict the judge's ruling on that one: "No, of course not."

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

 

[Fishking]

Cool, let Tweety McImpeachypeach plead the fifth.

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.

 

[Excast]

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

 

[Irwin Corey]

Prosecutor to Judge: "Your Honor, I'm certain there must be evidence in the Defendant's lawyer's case file. We don't have a case without it. I want an order for the Defense lawyer's case file and his notes of talking to his client."

I can predict the judge's ruling on that one: "No, of course not."

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

Fifth Amendment.

Try again. :coffeepap:

You're assuming that the Constitution is there to protect individual rights. In Democrat world it's there merely because they ran out of Charmin.

This is an interesting article that explains what the Founders intended Impeachment to be:

Alexander Hamilton dispensed of Trump'''s impeachment defense in 1788 — Quartz

The president also complains that he’s been deprived of due process, relying on the standards outlined for criminal trials.

But it goes on to say:

The historical record, however, doesn’t support Trump’s position that the two processes must mirror each other in form or function. Some have even called comparisons between impeachment and criminal proceedings “bogus” and “bad-faith arguments.”

Federalist 65:

Hamilton saw this coming. The prolific lawyer illuminated Trump’s claims, albeit indirectly, in Federalist No. 65, a seminal essay in the 1788 Federalist Papers. In the essay, Hamilton made it clear that political impeachment proceedings are necessarily treated unlike crimes in court, substantively and procedurally.

The essay explains the framers’ thinking on impeachment, as their reasoning had evolved over weeks of debate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It shows that political and criminal prosecutions are neither inextricably intertwined nor mutually exclusive. A president can be impeached for abuse of power in office, followed by a criminal prosecution or not. What offends the Constitution isn’t identical to a statutory crime. Hamilton noted of impeachment:

In Hamilton's words:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Read the whole article, please. But the upshot is this isn't a criminal trial and it has it's own rules, MOSTLY, because the person being impeached can, convicted or not, be prosecuted criminally without violating ANY concern for double jeopardy, and/or the 5th or other rules. Impeachment is the safety valve to be sure that Congress is allowed to perform it's OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION and DUTIES. Criminality and "Criminal Justice" are another Legal remedy but have NOTHING​ to do with Impeachment … on purpose.

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is an interesting article that explains what the Founders intended Impeachment to be:...

Without touching on the article you provided, all your arguments support the idea that the Senate does not need to be "fair and impartial" because the whole process is "political" and not necessarily criminal in nature.

If this is so, then how rail against the Republicans conducting it in as "partisan a way" as the Democrats did in the House?

Seems to me that your information supports the right of the Republican members simply moving for an immediate dismissal of all charges, once the period of House and Defense presentations authorized by the current rules are concluded.

All's fair in love, war, and politics...right?

I don't see it that way.

I see the fairest methodology is to play by rules everyone can understand. The Prosecution (House Democrats) have the full burden of proving their allegations of "wrongdoing" with whatever evidence they used (not wish to fish for) to reach their conclusions. The President's defense can then provide whatever counter-evidence they have. Then the Senate should vote against Impeachment.

Not because they are "biased" but because this whole process has been a political farce orchestrated by the Democrats to satisfy their base, and the President hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Without touching on the article you provided,

GTFQR. (got that far quit reading)

 

[Drawdown]

subpoena Tweety, and get him under oath.

Since he possesses no information relating to an alleged crime, there is no basis for him to be called as a witness. That is the same standard the dems have for Hunter so it should also apply to the POTUS.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

subpoena Tweety, and get him under oath.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Since he possesses no information relating to an alleged crime, there is no basis for him to be called as a witness. That is the same standard the dems have for Hunter so it should also apply to the POTUS.

That makes no sense at all....but I guess you already knew that.

 

[Drawdown]

That makes no sense at all....but I guess you already knew that.

Since there was no crime, he has no information related to a crime and therefore shouldn't be called. That is what the dems have been proclaiming all day as to why Hunter shouldn't be called in a discussion about a witness barter deal to get Bolton on the stand.

 

[Helix]

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.

let's find out.

 

[Helix]

Since he possesses no information relating to an alleged crime, there is no basis for him to be called as a witness. That is the same standard the dems have for Hunter so it should also apply to the POTUS.

he's the one who committed the impeachable offenses, so his testimony is highly relevant.

 

[Master Debator]

Without touching on the article you provided, all your arguments support the idea that the Senate does not need to be "fair and impartial" because the whole process is "political" and not necessarily criminal in nature.

If this is so, then how rail against the Republicans conducting it in as "partisan a way" as the Democrats did in the House?

Seems to me that your information supports the right of the Republican members simply moving for an immediate dismissal of all charges, once the period of House and Defense presentations authorized by the current rules are concluded.

All's fair in love, war, and politics...right?

I don't see it that way.

I see the fairest methodology is to play by rules everyone can understand. The Prosecution (House Democrats) have the full burden of proving their allegations of "wrongdoing" with whatever evidence they used (not wish to fish for) to reach their conclusions. The President's defense can then provide whatever counter-evidence they have. Then the Senate should vote against Impeachment.

Not because they are "biased" but because this whole process has been a political farce orchestrated by the Democrats to satisfy their base, and the President hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment.

When impeachment is described as a political process instead of a criminal trial it isn't meant to mean "partisan", it simply means that this is not a criminal proceeding so the rules governing those don't really apply. The question before the Senate is whether or not Donald Trump should get to keep his job and I think George Conway stated it pretty well yesterday when he said the standard for whether or not you get to keep your job isn't whether or not you committed a crime. Towards that end the Senate acts as jurors and in this role should be non partisan. They are not, even as Republicans, advocates for the President. Their goal should be to arrive at the truth and make a determination towards the Presidents fitness for office.

The House prosecutors have laid out a compelling case with a mountain of evidence from emails from the OBM and DOJ, text messages from White House and State Dept. officials, testimony from Ambassador Hill, Sondland and Vindman and finally the a Presidents own candid comments, as well as those of Guiliani and Mulvaney.

The Presidents defense, not the Republican Senators defense(remember they are impartial jurors), is that everything he does is perfect and the House has no first hand witnesses. They however provide no evidence, no witnesses, no testimony from anyone with information about the events that took place.

The Republican Senators have to weigh these two arguments and decide the merits of each. Not to decide whether Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether he should keep his job. Testimony from Giuliani, Mulvaney and Bolton would certainly be useful towards making that decision but if they think the President's weak ass argument gives them cover it doesn't. 50% of Americans think the President should be impeached and removed from office but even more than that 70% want there to be witnesses. That includes 40% of Republicans. Americans want to know what Trump did and the Republican Senators should be mindful of that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The House prosecutors have laid out a compelling case with a mountain of evidence from emails from the OBM and DOJ, text messages from White House and State Dept. officials, testimony from Ambassador Hill, Sondland and Vindman and finally the a Presidents own candid comments, as well as those of Guiliani and Mulvaney.

Your side keeps saying this, over and over and over again like you are speaking some profound truth...when it fact you are just parroting assertions being fed to you by the MSM.

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.

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

The Presidents defense, not the Republican Senators defense(remember they are impartial jurors), is that everything he does is perfect and the House has no first hand witnesses. They however provide no evidence, no witnesses, no testimony from anyone with information about the events that took place.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BlueTex]

Prosecutor to Judge: "Your Honor, I'm certain there must be evidence in the Defendant's lawyer's case file. We don't have a case without it. I want an order for the Defense lawyer's case file and his notes of talking to his client."

I can predict the judge's ruling on that one: "No, of course not."

In legal terminology that is called a subpoena... You know, like the ones sent to the administration that they defied (also known as obstructed)

 

[KLATTU]

In legal terminology that is called a subpoena... You know, like the ones sent to the administration that they defied (also known as obstructed)

You might have a case if the Dems took it to the courts to rule on the claim of executive privelege and he court rules against Trump. And THEN they refused to cooperate. Now that would be obstruction. This is a fail for Dems.
They should stick to the Ukraine call. Most of those facts are known due to the released transcript.

 

[BlueTex]

You might have a case if the Dems took it to the courts to rule on the claim of executive privelege and he court rules against Trump. And THEN they refused to cooperate. Now that would be obstruction. This is a fail for Dems.
They should stick to the Ukraine call. Most of those facts are known due to the released transcript.

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. In court they are arguing that the courts have no place in a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

Have you noticed how the same documents the committees were requesting are now starting to come out as a result of FOIA lawsuits and court orders? This is the danger for GOP senators, all these documents will eventually come out...