• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Evidence.............

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
24,131
Reaction score
11,122
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A vote on whether to allow new evidence into the impeachment trial was voted on today and did not pass on a 53-47 vote. It was 100% a partisan vote because that is exactly the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.

Why are the Republicans being partisan on this? Is evidence a political thing? Is the Constitution against evidence being produced? Is providing evidence against our established laws?

None of the above. Evidence is this case is thought to be damaging to Trump and therefore on a partisan basis they voted against it.

Where are we now? Have we decided to throw out our justice system that has been the backbone of our country for 240 years? Have we now decided that truth is no longer important? Are we now more interested in our perceived benefits that in defending our Constitution and our laws?

What happens in the future when some other president that the Republicans are against is then impeached for actions against the Constitution and he gets away with whatever he has done because he refused subpoenas and hid evidence simply because he was able to do so and the party in charge supported him? Is that what you want? Is that what you would support even if it against your political views?

I cannot understand anyone voting against evidence being provided. All Trump supporters have used the law when it has been in their favor, such as the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" being used every single day against the accusations being leveled against Trump. Now you are in favor of no evidence that proves innocence or guilt being introduced?

If that is the case, you are then proving the point that our nation (not just our political representatives) has become corrupt. Corruption from the bottom to the top and not just at the top.

If you believe in our Constitution and believe in our laws that state that guilt has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", you need to support the introduction of all evidence that is available! It is the only way that guilt or innocence can be proven! Simple as that!
 

Our legal system presumes innocence. Our democrats do not. Our sense of fairness relates to the accused, not the prosecutors.
 
Well let's see...everything that went down in the House was purely partisan so what's good for the goose and all.
 
This whole sham trial is more fixed that WrestleMania.
 
Drawdown said:
Our legal system presumes innocence. Our democrats do not. Our sense of fairness relates to the accused, not the prosecutors.
Click to expand...

The OP is not about parties but about laws and the Constitution.


Are you are against evidence that proves guilt or innocence being provided? Are you for the defendant deciding what evidence can be provided and which not? Are you against our established laws?

This is the question in the OP. There is nothing in the OP that talks about Party.
 
Lutherf said:
Well let's see...everything that went down in the House was purely partisan so what's good for the goose and all.
Click to expand...

This OP is not about the Party's but about the law!

Keep the parties out of your posts on this thread and tell me how you feel about evidence being presented (or not) in a trial.
 

Simple.

The charges are not "bribery, coercion, conspiracy," or any other actual "crimes." The Articles are "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress."

The Democrats did this on purpose because they had no actual evidence of any "crimes" and they seek to "investigate" in the Senate to fish for evidence.

However, the Senate does not have to allow this, nor should they. No actual Court would either. Trials are not fishing expeditions, they are dispute resolution mechanisms.

The only defense needed for each Article IMHO is Presidential Authority for Article I and Executive Privilege for Article II.

Thus there is no need to address any other evidence, only that regarding Executive Authority and Executive Privilege. NOT attempt to show bribery, conspiracy, etc..
 
Luckyone said:
This OP is not about the Party's but about the law!

Keep the parties out of your posts on this thread and tell me how you feel about evidence being presented (or not) in a trial.
Click to expand...

There is no law in what's happening with this impeachment. It's 100% Democrat politics and 100% Democrats making up law as they go along.
 

#MoscowMitch is going to tank it all. All while lying about doing it.
 
Drawdown said:
Our legal system presumes innocence. Our democrats do not. Our sense of fairness relates to the accused, not the prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Every witness who testified, every email document and whatsapp conversation -- a literal mountain of evidence -- has been inculpatory to Trump's guilt. Trump has not offered one shred of exculpatory evidence, no witnesses, no documents, absolutely nothing.
 
IF the vote was 53-47 aren't the Dems being just as partisan? Look, the bottom line is the House should not have delivered the Article if they didn't feel they had sufficient evidence. The House had the option to contest Trump's claims of executive privilege in court but they were so overheated with TDS they couldn't wait. Grasp that fact - the dems screwed the pooch. Now that have to live with what happens in the Senate.

Why was allow more evidence voted down. Because the friggin' Dems have been playing "just one more thing" bull**** for years. Look at the Kavenaugh hearing. The process was almost done when Fienstein tossed her little grenade even though she'd had it for quite a while.

Nadler published a 500+ page document outlining the evidence and testimony heard in the House.

Then Pelosi takes the Articles which were so important to get to save the world and goes away for a month. Give me a break

No "reasonable doubt" doesn't require even more testimony and documents. IF it did the House should have continued to gather it.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Well let's see...everything that went down in the House was purely partisan so what's good for the goose and all.
Click to expand...

Not really. Whether it be the House, the Senate, The Dems, the Repubs, Independents, any politician who takes ANY action(s) that keep Americans from discerning actual 'truth', is not good for anyone in the long run.
 

Trump is clearly a dangerous, rouge, self-serving POTUS. The House did nothing but fulfill it's Constitutional duty in impeaching this President.
 
Logician Man said:
Trump is clearly a dangerous, rouge, self-serving POTUS. The House did nothing but fulfill it's Constitutional duty in impeaching this President.
Click to expand...
None of those traits qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
Lutherf said:
Well let's see...everything that went down in the House was purely partisan so what's good for the goose and all.
Click to expand...

The Republicans have made it clear they don't want any evidence to cloud the issue. We are going to vote not guilty and we don't want America to know about the crimes they agreed to ignore. Trump has no real defense so this is their only way out.
 

Nonetheless, the main excuse/reason that the Republicans gave when the Impeachment inquiry was occurring was that it was "second hand testimony" and now because that did not work for their benefit, they changed their excuse/reason and it is now because this is not an impeachable offense. Whether this is impeachable or not is not something you or I can intelligently discuss (it is up to the Constitutional Scholars to decide).

Nonetheless, what is wrong is the "plea being changed". If a person is being accused of spousal abuse and he changes his plea from "innocent" to the "law does not apply in that particular situation and with the charges now stated", the first thing that needs to be done is to find out exactly to what degree the "spousal abuse" was before it can be decided whether the new plea applies or not. Simply stated, if it was the neighbors that reported the incident because they heard all the fight but there was a person in the house when the spousal abuse occurred, bringing in that witness no matter what. That witness will help the judge decide whether the laws do not apply to that spousal abuse or whether it does.

In addition, if spousal abuse did occur but the law to that amount of spousal abuse does not apply, it is still relevant because this person is responsible for all the households in the United States (not just his own) and we need to know just to what degree this person is willing to go as it applies to all of us.

And by the way, since when evidence not necessary when any wrong doing occurs? It is as much of a moral/ethical issue as a legal issue when the entire nation is personally involved. Being specific to this case, if Trump did try to withhold already authorized funds from an ally of our to protect his country in order to obtain a personal favor, it is wrong any way you look at it, whether legally it is or not.
 

Ummmmmmmmm, the Democrats have 47 and voted 47. That's about as partisan as you can get. Why do the Democrats have to be so partisan?
 

LOL you better reread your OP where your second and third sentences are, "It was 100% a partisan vote because that is exactly the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.

Why are the Republicans being partisan on this?"
 
Luckyone said:
This OP is not about the Party's but about the law!

Keep the parties out of your posts on this thread and tell me how you feel about evidence being presented (or not) in a trial.
Click to expand...

This is not a trial like in a criminal case, this is a trial by politics.
The house is the prosecutor, prosecutors are supposed to gather the evidence before the trial not during.
 
Moderate Right said:
Ummmmmmmmm, the Democrats have 47 and voted 47. That's about as partisan as you can get. Why do the Democrats have to be so partisan?
Click to expand...

Seriously? With all the persuasive evidence presented by all democrats today for legitimate reasons to allow witnesses and documents and not ONE republican voted against their party line. It's both a sham and a national disgrace.
 
Lutherf said:
There is no law in what's happening with this impeachment. It's 100% Democrat politics and 100% Democrats making up law as they go along.
Click to expand...

On that you are 100% wrong.

If Trump used the power of his office and withheld already authorized funds to obtain a personal political favor, it is wrong.

That needs to be decided in a trial. The Democrats may be proven wrong but a trial must be held and evidence of guilt or innocence has to be provided. It is the law!

Even innocent people have to go to trial when accused even if accused unfairly. It is up to the judge to decide that after "all the evidence is provided". This has been the case now for 240 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…