• 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!

Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which I highly doubt they are going to allow since they also tabled the turning over of documents. Which is always the first part of any trial because that is the most time consuming and labor intensive part of any trial. They have to be gathered, reviewed, redacted where necessary, delivered, reviewed again, sequenced, cataloged, etc. There's no way you really can do all that on the last days of a trial. So if they're not serious about that I doubt they're serious about calling witnesses either.
 

Regardless of how you try and belittle Moot your posts make little sense. You're obviously not a lawyer and apparently you've lost the debate as you are now just making disparaging comments.
 

Those aren't impeachment inquiries as you initially said. Go troll somewhere else. No one is that stupid here.
 

Evidently the Republicans think Americans are morons. And maybe they're right seeing as though we elected one. The average American knows what a trial is and that is witnesses and documentary evidence. That's what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to see here. And if they don't then you can just wait and see who they decide to piss on then.
 
sjmay said:
I see, so the House did it because lots of unacceptable consequences? Interesting I guess....
Click to expand...

Unacceptable for their voters.

Who they are supposed to work for.

Not particularly interesting.
 
im arguing that you dont go trial without sufficent evidence. They felt they had enough to vote to impesch them. Present that case to the senste and then sfter they do that if the senate feels they want additionsl witnesses or documents, they can request it. Democrats claim they have rnough to impeach so show us what they got and we can go from there.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

My source was Wikipedia...the same as yours. You failed to prove your own claim that there were three PREVIOUS impeachment inquiries. No one is arguing that that Pelosi called for an "official" impeachment inquiry. But you consistently fail to prove that there were three previous ones as per your original claim.

Look, if you can't back up your own claim then just say ...I'll understand.
 

If the GOP were acting in good faith, I'd agree, but they aren't.
 

Kind of reminds me when the courts ordered Hillary to keep all emails related to government business and somehow over 30,000 were deleted. Talk about a cover up.
 



Those were resolutions...not impeachment inquiry's. Apparently, you don't know the difference. :lamo

The resolutions failed because they didn't get any votes and that's why there weren't any impeachment inquiries ...just like I said in post #54.

So where's the previous impeachment inquiries? You said there were "3 previous impeachment inquiries." So why can't you prove it? Oh thats right, you're confused, misinformed and can't follow a discussion so everything has to be repeated for you over and over and even then you still can't follow a discussion that YOU started. Pathetic...and so typical of your ilk.

But whatabout Obama...and all the efforts and resolutions that Republicans said and did to try to impeach him?

"...In March 2012, Republican Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[13] The resolution died in the House Judiciary Committee.[14].."

On August 19, 2013, Republican Congressman Kerry Bentivolio stated that if he could write articles of impeachment, "it would be a dream come true". To help in achieving that goal, he retained experts and historians.[23][24] During the same interview, Bentivolio called the press "the most corrupt thing in Washington," and said that he was looking to tie the White House to the IRS targeting controversy "as evidence of impeachment [sic]".

On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws", which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings.

The convention of the South Dakota Republican Party voted in a 196-176 resolution to call for the impeachment of Obama based on his action to release five detainees from Guantanamo Bay in order to free Bowe Bergdahl from his Taliban captors.[27][28] Congressmember Allen West expressed the view that the prisoner exchange that brought the release of Bowe Bergdahl was grounds for impeachment.[29][19]

In May 2016, the Oklahoma Legislature filed a measure asking the representatives from Oklahoma in the House of Representatives to impeach Obama, the U.S. attorney general, the U.S. secretary of education and any other administration officials involved in the decision to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, alleging that these federal officials had exceeded their constitutional authority by issuing a directive to state schools. The same resolution also "condemns the actions of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education ... as contrary to the values of the citizens of Oklahoma".[31].."

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia​
 
Last edited:
Michael Cole said:
If the GOP were acting in good faith, I'd agree, but they aren't.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by good faith?
What are they doing or not doing that is an act of bad faith?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The evidence is supposed to be supplied by impeachment managers. Nadler says there "plenty of evidence".
 
Moderate Right said:
Kind of reminds me when the courts ordered Hillary to keep all emails related to government business and somehow over 30,000 were deleted. Talk about a cover up.
Click to expand...
The entire complaint about fairness is bogus. The senate is allowing the house to make to use of all the materials they based their impeachment on. Theres nothing unfair about that. It would actually be unfair to the defense to continually add things for them to prepare a defense for. They prepared for the evidence and charges that were passed in the house.
If democrats feel there is additional information to add, they need to gather it in the house and have a new impeachment vote. Thats what fair looks like.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Michael Cole said:
If the GOP were acting in good faith, I'd agree, but they aren't.
Click to expand...
But they are. It is the Democrats' job to prove their case, not the Republicans' job to make it easy. This is completely in keeping with good faith and the Democrats having no case.
 

Not sure, but I think the senators can call for witnesses during the question period. I suspect that's when Bolton will be called...and if he is, McConnell has threatened to hold his testimony behind closed doors.

The Dems are also mulling whether or not to let Hunter Biden testify in exchange for letting Bolton testify. But don't quote me on any of this.
 
sjmay said:
They are, they are absolutely letting the defendant's laywers submit evidence and witness testimony from the House investigation......what's the problem with that?
Click to expand...

because there is evidence that was blocked by the WH to the House investigation and impeachment, there is more to see here...we need to see more from Parnas, Bolton and Mulvany....he hasn't claimed executive priviledge.
 
Bullseye said:
The evidence is supposed to be supplied by impeachment managers. Nadler says there "plenty of evidence".
Click to expand...

And there is and the President's lawyers are doing little to nothing in refuting it. But that doesn't mean that the American people don't want hear from the people that had firsthand role in it. And really what better way would there be to put end to it once and for all than to bring these witnesses forward so they can unequivocally state that nothing of the sort happened. Unless of course there is a concern that they won't be able to do so if placed under oath.
 
Moderate Right said:
Kind of reminds me when the courts ordered Hillary to keep all emails related to government business and somehow over 30,000 were deleted. Talk about a cover up.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall a court making such an order.
 

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.
 
ClaraD said:
because there is evidence that was blocked by the WH to the House investigation and impeachment, there is more to see here...we need to see more from Parnas, Bolton and Mulvany....he hasn't claimed executive priviledge.
Click to expand...

Why do we need more, did the House Democrats jump the gun, not prove their case? Why?
 

Would it really matter? Seriously, all 17 of the witnesses that testified, said quid pro quo didn't happen, they didn't have any evidence of that, or bribery, and you guys still moved forward....

That's why it's innocent until proven guilty.....how in the hell does Trump provide a document of something that wasn't done?

Think about that, everyone is saying, well just let people testify if there is nothing to hide, when you don't ****ing believe the testimony that you ALREADY HAVE.

But there's more, you think there will be documents proving Trump's innocence, how the **** does that even work? Look here....there's ZERO emails about this...therefore he must be innocent...right?
 

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is over witnesses that are blocked and documents withheld by Trump and Co. In both houses.
 
Taylor said:
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?
Click to expand...

We are saying that new evidence has been revealed since the vote to impeach and there are requested witnesses that have refuse to testify. Are you saying that new evidence is a no no in this special case? By special case I mean that Republicans have already declared him innocent with no defense by Trump or his attorneys.
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Schiff clarified this last night to note that at that time the senate can debate whether to allow witnesses to give testimony before the senate body
53/47 would not be a bad prediction to anticipate the (un)likelihood of witness testimony
 
Nickyjo said:
You seem to be missing the point. The issue is over witnesses that are blocked and documents withheld by Trump and Co. In both houses.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing the point, the point is, the House chose not to pursue the remedy they had available to them.....
 
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…