Should Witnesses Be Called In The Senate Impeachment Trial?

[Patriotic Voter]

I guess you don't understand my posts.

I never said the Ds stopped Trump from testifying.

I said the Rs complained the Ds didn't let them bring in witnesses they wanted to bring in. Now they will have that opportunity. But they are saying they aren't going to call any witnesses. Even though they now have the opportunity to call exactly who they wanted during the inquiry.

I get it; you are not a liberal. Can you name the witnesses Schiff blocked from testifying and the ones Trump blocked from testifying to make sure all of the names are different?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Seems to me that POTUS could destroy his accusers by allowing Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, McGahn, Pence and others to testify and produce documents to prove his innocence. Someone unjustly accused would relish the chance to salvage his honor.

There is no reason an innocent suspect would tell his own legal team to ignore subpoenas. Trump is guilty.

 

[dairyair]

I get it; you are not a liberal. Can you name the witnesses Schiff blocked from testifying and the ones Trump blocked from testifying to make sure all of the names are different?

I see you just want to argue with yourself.
Have at it.

 

[DiAnna]

Notable omission... the "We need to hear from witnesses who were not allowed to testify in congress" option.

I'm sure it was left off by accident. :roll:

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I see you just want to argue with yourself. Have at it.

No, I am making a point that Democrats never blocked witnesses Trump wanted to testify.

 

[btthegreat]

Didn't R's complain they couldn't call their witnesses?
Now they can.

Can they or are they merely offering input into a process Trump attorneys controls? Regardless, Moscow Mitch can set up the rules so that Trump's lawyers can without any pesky objections from House Managers on any grounds Roberts can sustain. Remember once the trial starts, the likes of McConnell, and Graham put their partisan hats away, stop colluding with the White House to rig this thing, and become concerned and unbiases jurors who are only looking for truth, justice and the American way. Juries don't normally call witnesses.

But Rudy conceivably could as Trump's personal attorney ( has he been fired yet?) - if he can get away from Ukraine and avoid subpoenas and an arrest warrant long enough to show up.

 

[dairyair]

No, I am making a point that Democrats never blocked witnesses Trump wanted to testify.

A point no one but you made.

As I said, you just want to argue with yourself. Making up your own claims and arguing them.

Certainly not addressing anything I posted to you.

 

[dairyair]

Not surethat they can, but Moscow Mitch can set up the rules so that Trump's lawyers can without any pesky objections from House Managers on any grounds Roberts can sustain. Remember once the trial starts, the likes of McConnell, and Graham put their partisan hats away, stop colluding with the White House to rig this thing, and become concerned and unbiases jurors who are only looking for truth, justice and the American way. Juries don't normally call witnesses. But Rudy conceivably could as Trump's personal attorney - if he can get away from Ukraine and avoid subpoenas and an arrest warrant long enough to show up.

I doubt R's will call any witnesses as they have stated.
Who could they call that could clear tRUMP without question? IMO, anyone on the call would conquer with the impeachment charges, if they told the truth.
Which is why, there won't be any witnesses.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Notable omission... the "We need to hear from witnesses who were not allowed to testify in Congress" option.

I'm sure it was left off by accident.

Meaning the people TRUMP ordered not to testify?

All of the witnesses we need to hear were asked or ordered to testify in the House of Representatives, but Trump proved his guilt partially by telling some of his men not to.

 

[btthegreat]

I doubt R's will call any witnesses as they have stated.
Who could they call that could clear tRUMP without question? IMO, anyone on the call would conquer with the impeachment charges, if they told the truth.
Which is why, there won't be any witnesses.

The plan would be to put Biden, his son, Schiff and the Whistleblower on trial. None of it is relevant, but it makes a better show of fogging up the matter for Fox News.

 

[nota bene]

The plan would be to put Biden, his son, Schiff and the Whistleblower on trial. None of it is relevant, but it makes a better show of fogging up the matter for Fox News.

Are you saying here that the entire Congress is pandering to Fox News?

 

[chuckiechan]

We don't need to hear from witnesses who have already testified, but yes, more witnesses who have first hand information or have been blocked by Trump should definitely testify in the impeachment trial. Add Trump himself to this short list of four.



Schumer proposes that Bolton and Mulvaney testify in Senate impeachment trial

If you couldn’t make your case with your hand picked witnesses, you sure as hell won’t stand up to an impartial trial in the Senate where both parties get to speak.

 

[btthegreat]

Are you saying here that the entire Congress is pandering to Fox News?

Nope. I think we can both guess who will and who will not be pandering to Fox News without much difficulty and the majority in the Senate definitely will be. That is what it takes to win re-election if you happen to be a republican senator.

 

[Somerville]

I like what Mike Huckabee said:

Speaking on "Outnumbered Overtime" Huckabee said, “To quote [climate activist] Greta Thunberg, I would say to Chuck Schumer, ‘How dare you?' And here is why: He said nothing during the entire time that the House was rejecting any idea that the Republicans would get a chance to hear from key witnesses, whether it was the whistleblower, [ex-FBI investigator] Peter Strzok, [former FBI lawyer] Lisa Page,[former FBI director] James Comey,[onetime CIA Director] John Brennan, go through the whole list, they wouldn’t hear from any of them.”

He added, “And now Chuck Schumer, seriously, is demanding that he gets to call witnesses for this sham? I am embarrassed for him.” Mike Huckabee on Chuck Schumer'''s demand for impeachment witnesses: '''I'''m embarrassed for him''' | Fox News

You LIKE what Mike Huckabee said? The only semi-relevant witness would be the whistleblower and everything in their report has been supported by the testimony of other witnesses. It seems to me that the only reason the Repubs want to call out the whistleblower despite the laws protecting their identity is to cause any person who may wish to file a complaint in the future to not do so due to potential repercussions if their identity became known.

Huckabee wants testimony from "Peter Strzok, [former FBI lawyer] Lisa Page,[former FBI director] James Comey,[onetime CIA Director] John Brennan, " for what reason? They were all out of the government at the time of the Ukraine ****-up.

Testimony from the "whole list"? Who's on that whole list? Huckabee is doing little more than trying to keep HIS name before the public by spouting off 'accepted' rightie crap on friendly media.

 

[TomFitz]

Yes, I think Mulvaney, Pompeo, Barr and Rudy should all be called to testify under oath. We already know what the previous witnesses have said, now it's time to hear from those closest to the president, under oath.

The questions is, while trump is being charged with contempt of congress, will he and the republicans continue to deny congress what they are asking for in the senate trial and continue their contempt of congress?

In my opinion, the republicans have painted themselves into a no win corner. When they ignore all the evidence and let trump slide, the american people won't forget. The gop may not remove him but my money is on the voters to remove him and a few of the republican senators too.

That depends on your point of view.

Trumpsters are conditioned to believe wherever they hear in that narrow little right wing media fantasy world that has been constructed for them. That media, like most television media, focuses on the horse race and gotcha politics, rather than real policy or vision.

To them, constitutional issues are talking points. They believe that nothing will really change of Trump declares himself a king, which is what he will try to do if he beats this.

He will view himself as untouchable, and set out to once again dare anyone to touch him.

 

[Moderate Right]

Didn't R's complain they couldn't call their witnesses?
Now they can.

There really is no need to call any witnesses. Democrats already did that. We can use that testimony in the Senate trial.

 

[Moderate Right]

Im not quite sure how you swear in a here say witness, but each one that testified should be called and cross examined under oath.

Why does everyone under one type of justice lie like a rug and get away with it, and the other justice system throws the book at the guy on the other side.

Weinstein and Epstein surrender with their lawyers, Rodger Stone and Manafort got FBI SWAT raids.

Tell me justice is equal, I need a good laugh!

Weren't they already testifying under oath and cross examined in the Democrats impeachment hearings?

 

[Moderate Right]

I want witnesses. Schiff,the whistleblower, his attorney. Chalupa.

There's really no need. It was up to the prosecution to prove their case and they have failed miserably. Therefore, the defense doesn't need to call anyone to win the case.

 

[chuckiechan]

Weren't they already testifying under oath and cross examined in the Democrats impeachment hearings?

I checked, and apparently they were. That is a good thing if the Republicans have the stones to enforce perjury. Which as shown in the Kavenaugh travesty, they don’t. According to what I’m reading, Yovanovitch is lying. But it’s all about tactics rather than facts, so the Senate will play the game for a week or until the ratings fall.

The political center of gravity has moved on

 

[gdgyva]

But now when it goes to the Senate, they can call all those witnesses. Can they not?
It will be their show then.

In court cases, the prosecution goes first...presents their case...

If their case is lacking, and the defense team thinks the case has not been made, they can ask the judge to have the case dismissed before even presenting a defense

We maybe looking at something similar here....there is NO EVIDENCE other than "hear say" evidence, and the GOP may consider that the democrats never "made" their case

That isnt for me to decide....i am just putting this out there for conjecture....

If that is what they think, they may not call any witnesses....

I know one thing...i know Trump doesnt get within a half mile of the place and will NEVER testify

 

[Paradoxical]

There's really no need. It was up to the prosecution to prove their case and they have failed miserably. Therefore, the defense doesn't need to call anyone to win the case.

I understand that. But half of America believes their lies which is what they wanted.

 

[Moderate Right]

I understand that. But half of America believes their lies which is what they wanted.

I have been involved in some court cases, seen news of others on tv, and watched court shows. The honest truth is that if you have already won the case the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut and be content with the fact that you have won. I have seen many times (Mike Tyson being the most famous example) where his case was won, there was no provable evidence against him, and yet he felt compelled to open his mouth and spout off, giving the prosecution enough evidence to convict him. People just need to be content with winning.

 

[TomFitz]

I like what Mike Huckabee said:

Speaking on "Outnumbered Overtime" Huckabee said, “To quote [climate activist] Greta Thunberg, I would say to Chuck Schumer, ‘How dare you?' And here is why: He said nothing during the entire time that the House was rejecting any idea that the Republicans would get a chance to hear from key witnesses, whether it was the whistleblower, [ex-FBI investigator] Peter Strzok, [former FBI lawyer] Lisa Page,[former FBI director] James Comey,[onetime CIA Director] John Brennan, go through the whole list, they wouldn’t hear from any of them.”

He added, “And now Chuck Schumer, seriously, is demanding that he gets to call witnesses for this sham? I am embarrassed for him.” Mike Huckabee on Chuck Schumer'''s demand for impeachment witnesses: '''I'''m embarrassed for him''' | Fox News

He does make my point quite well, although he walks into it backwards, as the reactionary right often does.

Huckabee’ s remarks are nothing more than walking the Trump talking points.

The GOP ranted and raved for a couple of days because Schiff wouldn’t let them put on thier side show. Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Brennan, Comey, and the whistleblower that the reactionaries try to keep exposing and trying to discredit, have nothing to to with Trump’s behavior towards the Ukraine, or the shady little scheme that his flunkies were up to.

So it is truly manufactured outrage, when Huckabee talks out of the other side of his mouth and expresses outrage that Schumer would DARE to ask for the direct witnesses to the actual relevant events.

Put the principals of Trump’s scheme on the stand.

Let’s have Lev Parnas tell us about where he got the million in Russian money he used to pay Donald Trump’s “pro bono” attorney.

Let’s have Rick Perry describe how he tried to blackmail Ukrainian leaders into putting one of his biggest backers into a pipeline deal.

Let’s have Guliani show us his financials.

Let’s have Gordon Sondland get his “memory refreshed again.

Let’s put John Soloman on the stand.

John Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence.

And when Trump’s thin skin and towering ego get to him, put him up there!

 

[Risky Thicket]

You might want to brush up on the U.S. Constitution. The Senators (all 100 of them) are the jury. Chief Justice John Roberts is the presiding judge. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is not going to dismiss the charges without a trial so it will happen. If Republicans don't take their oath seriously, it is only by voting for acquittal after the trial for partisan reasons.

If Moscow Mitch decides to ass around and not call witnesses or claims he will make an attempt to race to a quick acquittal, the Democrats can legally vote to withhold submitting the Articles of impeachment to the Senate until the Senate agrees to provide an honest, fair and complete trial. It is what the Democrats should do if Moscow Mitch attempts to circumvent a real trial.

 

[TomFitz]

I understand that. But half of America believes their lies which is what they wanted.

That’s because the evidence and testimony is obvious.

The Trump forces are not arguing the facts of the case at all. They have never denied that any of this went on, and they have offered only the most cheesy and flimsy excuses for it (only a real fool would even present to believe that Trump cares about corruption anywhere, much less Ukraine!).