Why Doesn't Mitch McConnell Want Witnesses To Testify? Because He Knows Trump is Guilty.

[Condor060]

Executive branch says executive branch is immune from oversight. Not compelling.

Nothing I provided says immune from oversight. Try again.

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel.

 

[Fletch]

This is what happens when you successfully promote a sham partisan impeachment without a single fact witness who can testify in court. You were all warned up front but would you listen. Nooooooooo'

So now you have this problem where you can't provide a single witness in federal court to support your sham impeachment and somehow its Republicans fault? And now if everyone doesn't agree to change the federal rules of evidence and witness testimony we are all cultist?

Do you even listen to yourself or is this just you being so far outside reality you don't know the difference?

Democrats were in complete control of what witnesses were called and they decided to proceed without the testimony of Bolton and Mulveney. The idea that all of the sudden their testimony is vital is absurd. If their testimony was so vital, the House should have waited to hear from them before voting on impeachment. Yet they didnt. So all the liberal whining about their testimony is just that, liberal whining. Whats funny is that the true cultists here are all on the left. NOtice how they all make the identical demands and use the identical 'arguments' NOt one of them has an independent thought. They simp;y repeat what they hear their cult leaders say on TV then run here and pretend they came up with it on their own.

 

[snakestretcher]

Witnesses to what? The House has made its impeachment case based on its (carefully selected?) witness's testimony and that case and those witnesses will be heard by the Senate. The nonsense that one must prove their "exoneration" to avoid removal from office is pure fiction. After all, Bill Clinton confessed to felony perjury and was not removed from office.

Those witnesses were not "carefully selected", they volunteered their testimonies.

 

[snakestretcher]

This is your problem. You don't listen. Nobody stated they were not fact witnesses. Mulvaney and Bolton did not testify in the hearings thus nothing in the impeachment articles are supported by Mulvaney or Bolton. The articles are ONLY supported by Democrat hearsay witnesses.

Since you have no fact witnesses the SUPPORT your articles of impeachment, you have no witnesses to testify. If you have no witnesses to testify, why would McConnell provide witnesses to rebut your articles when you have no witnesses to support it.

It would be like going to a murder trial and the judge would say to the prosecutor, call your first witness. Every witness the prosecutor called was dismissed as hearsay. Not allowed to testify.

Since the prosecutor hasn't been able to provide a single witness to prosecute the case, and has no evidence to provide, the case is thrown out of court. Why would you think the defense would put up a dozen witnesses to defend his client when there is nothing to defend? There is no witness to rebut. There is no evidence to defend against.

What you want is to go to court, with no fact witnesses and no evidence and force the defense to put up all of their witnesses so you cross examine them at your leisure because you couldn't depose them yourself.

THis is the fairy tale trial you and Pelosi want to happen. Its never happened in the history of the country and it won't happen now. This is what you get for shoving this fairy tale article of impeachment down Americas throat without a single witness who can testify in court. Yet another egg on the face of Democrats for the idiocy of faking another investigation that turned up nothing.

So why won't Trump allow witnesses to testify? Why won't he answer subpoena requests? Simple questions you'll no doubt try to skate around.

 

[Condor060]

So why won't Trump allow witnesses to testify? Why won't he answer subpoena requests? Simple questions you'll no doubt try to skate around.

With easy answers. If there are no witnesses for the prosecution to provide, there is no reason to put up testimony from any witnesses for the defense. Why would you provide a defense when there are no witnesses against you?

Exactly what McConnell has told Pelosi. He isn't calling any witnesses. Now Pelosi wants to renegotiate the terms of federal court procedures for the rules of evidence and witnesses.

Ain't never gonna happen

 

[snakestretcher]

With easy answers. If there are no witnesses for the prosecution to provide, there is no reason to put up testimony from any witnesses for the defense. Why would you provide a defense when there are no witnesses against you?

Exactly what McConnell has told Pelosi. He isn't calling any witnesses. Now Pelosi wants to renegotiate the terms of federal court procedures for the rules of evidence and witnesses.

Ain't never gonna happen

If there are no witnesses to provide then you'll have to explain why Trump is explicitly refusing to provide them. The answer is simple; cowardice and guilt. An innocent man doesn't hide behind 'executive privilege', or command his minions to disobey Congress.

 

[Condor060]

If there are no witnesses to provide then you'll have to explain why Trump is explicitly refusing to provide them. The answer is simple; cowardice and guilt. An innocent man doesn't hide behind 'executive privilege', or command his minions to disobey Congress.

For those of us who know absolutely nothing about the rules of evidence and witnesses I am going to put this in elementary terms so as not to repeat the same thing over and over.

1. NEVER in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has ANY person accused of a crime provided a defense and/or testimony when there are no witness testimony or evidence against them.

2. Only in the mind of an idiot could you ever expect ANYONE to testify against themselves when no evidence or witnesses testimony are provided against them

3. Only in the mind of an idiot would you think an innocent man would provide his own testimony to defend himself when there is no evidence or witness testimony against him.

4. Only in the mind of an idiot (Especially since Clinton testified in his impeachment) could you even conceive Executive Privilege could be used to stop testimony in a Federal Impeachment trial.

If that doesn't clear things up for the less intelligent then I suggest starting back at line one and reading through it until it gets through those thick craniums holding those little liberal brains.

 

[snakestretcher]

For those of us who know absolutely nothing about the rules of evidence and witnesses I am going to put this in elementary terms so as not to repeat the same thing over and over.

1. NEVER in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has ANY person accused of a crime provided a defense and/or testimony when there are no witness testimony or evidence against them.

2. Only in the mind of an idiot could you ever expect ANYONE to testify against themselves when no evidence or witnesses testimony are provided against them

3. Only in the mind of an idiot would you think an innocent man would provide his own testimony to defend himself when there is no evidence or witness testimony against him.

4. Only in the mind of an idiot (Especially since Clinton testified in his impeachment) could you even conceive Executive Privilege could be used to stop testimony in a Federal Impeachment trial.

If that doesn't clear things up for the less intelligent then I suggest starting back at line one and reading through it until it gets through those thick craniums holding those little liberal brains.

Such defensiveness. Cute!

 

[vegas giants]

You must know something none of the Democrats know. How did you get to be so smart?

So provide us all with the names of the Democrats fact witnesses as we are all eager to learn from your expertise.

Start with Mulvaney and Bolton. We dont know what they know until they testify

 

[vegas giants]

If you did read them, (which you didn't) you would know they will testify just as soon as you can provide a witness to testify against.

Sorry bout your luck

Mulvaney and bolton

 

[OscarLevant]

Yeah, now you're just making **** up again. Because we are waiting for actual proof to be brought forward against Trump, yet all we've seen is assumptions and allegations. Which is basically the most your sides had this entire time.

I'm reserving the right to not only laugh at this premise, but to laugh at it theatrically. Like I was a goddamned marvel villain.

there is no allegation anyone can make against this WH where Trump would view as legitimate.


I was responding to the claim that the allegations are baseless. My rebuttal makes that point a moot point.


When you get a ticket by a cop, whether or not you believe it was "baseless", you are afforded the opportunity to prove your innocence in court.

What you don't get to do is tell the cop his "claim is baseless".


that's how justice works. Agreed, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, but it is similar. Otherwise, the right should quit whining about "due process".

Your last line "you'd laugh", falls under a weak debate technique called "posturing", and, as such, posturing is never a merit worthy counter argument.


Imagine you are in court, and you say to the judge, we have proof, but defense counsel has it, and they won't allow us access.


So, your reply is " you have no proof".


Yeah, you're not allowing access to it.

But what we do have is testimony of 17 foreign service personel, and others close to the scene, all of whom testify that Trump did what he is accused of.


Until you provide plaintiff ( Congress) with what it requests, we'll just have to go with what we got.

And rightfully so.


See, unless Trump and Co allow the docs and witnesses to testify, the vast majority of the electorate will not believe the senate acquittal, which has been decided before hand, as legitimate. The argument that Congress has preconcieved, is not an argument. Prosecutors ALWAYS conclude before hand. Thats not a counter argument for not having a full trial with witnesses and documents.

IF Trump is unwilling to provide congress what exculpatory evidence, what is Congress to believe?

What is the electorate to believe? Guilt, that is the only logical position to take.

 

[iguanaman]

Just wow, talk about indoctrination. Here is legal class 101

1. None of the witnesses who testified will be allowed in a Senate trial. Every one of the witnesses who testified in the hearings are hearsay witnesses, none are fact witnesses.

2. Every single witnesses who testified in the hearings stated under republican questioning that have no knowledge of any impeachable crimes, just their presumptions

3. Since none of the Democrat witnesses can testify in court, McConnell has stated he will bring no witnesses to testify either. Why would you put up a defense when their are no witnesses to testify against you

4. Pelosi wants the negotiate the terms of the Senate trial to allow her to call Trump witnesses as well as her own

5. Pelosi isn't a Senator and has nothing to bargain with which is why she is holding the Articles unless she gets here way.

6. If her fake articles of impeachment were real, she wouldn't need to negotiate anything as they would speak for themselves but since they decided to make this a partisan impeachment with no fact witnesses and no evidence, she has successfully promoted an impeachment that can't be supported by any witness in a federal court

This is the idiocy of the Democrat party. Her only option now is to put up or shut up

It Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney can't defend the President who can? There will be no trial without witnesses and no "exoneration" for Trump either. That is Nancy's leverage and she will hold it over his head until she is good and ready.

 

[Deuce]

For those of us who know absolutely nothing about the rules of evidence and witnesses I am going to put this in elementary terms so as not to repeat the same thing over and over.

1. NEVER in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has ANY person accused of a crime provided a defense and/or testimony when there are no witness testimony or evidence against them.

2. Only in the mind of an idiot could you ever expect ANYONE to testify against themselves when no evidence or witnesses testimony are provided against them

3. Only in the mind of an idiot would you think an innocent man would provide his own testimony to defend himself when there is no evidence or witness testimony against him.

4. Only in the mind of an idiot (Especially since Clinton testified in his impeachment) could you even conceive Executive Privilege could be used to stop testimony in a Federal Impeachment trial.

If that doesn't clear things up for the less intelligent then I suggest starting back at line one and reading through it until it gets through those thick craniums holding those little liberal brains.

Never in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has the defendant had unilateral authority to suppress evidence. Deal with it.

 

[Paradoxical]

If there are no witnesses to provide then you'll have to explain why Trump is explicitly refusing to provide them. The answer is simple; cowardice and guilt. An innocent man doesn't hide behind 'executive privilege', or command his minions to disobey Congress.

Your side could have filed suit and decided you didn't want to and took your chances and lost.

Look, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and with Trump at the helm, Lucy once again pulled that football away at the very last second and peanuts fell flat on his back. You wasted 3 months not going to court because, quite frankly, your side knew you would get hammered. Now, Ma and Pa Kettle are feigning upset that even though Trump has asserted executive privilege, he should forget all about that and let Ma and Pa get their way.

Speaking of which,these old fossils have always gotten their way and have't experienced shame, humiliation and defeat on this scale EVERRR!

Our side knows what is really happening. Ma Kettle knows her goose is OVER cooked and she has nothing at all to show the Senate, She is trying to buy some time for maybe a Christmas Miracle and for Santa Claus to drop some "evidence" in that empty bag. McConnell has given their collective of arrogant assassins the finger and told them that their kangaroo court is done, over, finiti. The Senate will take over if and when she delivers the bag of air. The trial will be smooth and efficient and take maybe a half hour or so. Here is how it will go after pleasantries are exchanged, There will be no speeches from constitutional scholars or arrogant Vidman types:

Q, to Trump haters: I see you are holding a bag. Is that for the court to see?
A FROM Trump haters: Yes your honor
Q. to Trump haters: Please hand that to the clerk, Clerk. Please take the contents out so that I can review them
(Clerk looks through bag, shakes it, turns it upside down and inside out and finds it empty)

Q, to Trump haters: I expected to see evidence. You brought an empty bag
A. From Trump haters: Yes, your honor but we did get testimony from others that they didn't much like Orange Man
Q, to Trump haters: The court asked for fact witnesses also. Please present them.
A. FROM Trump haters: Um,your honor, we have someone who said he presumed, assumed, speculated and did the jig.

Q. to Trump haters: Do you have anything else to present to the court in the way of FACTS or first hand knowledge>
A. From Trump haters: You want like REAL facts and stuff? We thought he could be impeached because

Q. to Clerk; Please take Ma and Pa Kettle and evil eyes Schiff directly to jail for impersonating someone with half a brain because you couldn't make one brain out of all three of them. Case DISMISSED!

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I probably am a kind of rare Republican who actually was a very long term Democrat. I knew that smell of a Democrat who spins his tires on the pavement thinking he wins the drag race. But spinning tires is not how to win the race.

Obama was as much a racist as is Trump.

Were you a Democrat before LBJ "betrayed" the South in 1964? After all, that's when all of the Southern Democrat racists became Republicans.

I suspect you also think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Then you're simply willing to bet the outcome of something on a fallacy, which is being hedged on a group of people who could just as easily be lying about this exact premise.

Yet you claim that you're intellectually honest?

You can claim that Trump is this and that all you like Kerry, but you can't actually prove that he is as such, and neither can these scholars. Because they're nowhere to be seen with actual proof. Which is why they were nonexistent in the impeachment hearings.

So is hedging your bets on a fallacy all you have at this point?

The 500 legal scholars disagree with you. You got nada, except your misguided whining and misguided opinions. You lose.

Trump "winning" is all that matters to you. You don't care that he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.

 

[Apocalypto]

Trump’s impeachment trial should be modeled after Clinton’s trial.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Actually given the evidence. Obama was a verdant white supremacist.

This is what deranged Trump cultists believe, ladies and gentlemen.

Trump cultists are consumed by hatred of liberals. That's why they have these idiotic beliefs. They don't even care that Trump is a traitor working for Putin. Hatred of liberals is more important to them.

 

[Condor060]

Never in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has the defendant had unilateral authority to suppress evidence. Deal with it.

This hasn't been in a courtroom yet and no evidence has been provided. In what world are you talking about.

 

[narrowroad]

That is the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen. McConnell is protecting Trump because he knows Trump is guilty. [/url]

please

either you don't get it or you pretend not to get it so as to promote your hate-Trump bs

If one p erson says A is true
and Trump says No, B is actually true

it doesn't even matter who is telling the truth, one will be believed over the other. . which of course makes the other one not-believed a LIAR

and it will be R against D vis a vis believability

geez... anyone who doesn't see this for the political bs it is... is fooling himself

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

This is your problem. You don't listen. Nobody stated they were not fact witnesses. Mulvaney and Bolton did not testify in the hearings thus nothing in the impeachment articles are supported by Mulvaney or Bolton. The articles are ONLY supported by Democrat hearsay witnesses.

Since you have no fact witnesses the SUPPORT your articles of impeachment, you have no witnesses to testify. If you have no witnesses to testify, why would McConnell provide witnesses to rebut your articles when you have no witnesses to support it.

It would be like going to a murder trial and the judge would say to the prosecutor, call your first witness. Every witness the prosecutor called was dismissed as hearsay. Not allowed to testify.

Since the prosecutor hasn't been able to provide a single witness to prosecute the case, and has no evidence to provide, the case is thrown out of court. Why would you think the defense would put up a dozen witnesses to defend his client when there is nothing to defend? There is no witness to rebut. There is no evidence to defend against.

What you want is to go to court, with no fact witnesses and no evidence and force the defense to put up all of their witnesses so you cross examine them at your leisure because you couldn't depose them yourself.

THis is the fairy tale trial you and Pelosi want to happen. Its never happened in the history of the country and it won't happen now. This is what you get for shoving this fairy tale article of impeachment down Americas throat without a single witness who can testify in court. Yet another egg on the face of Democrats for the idiocy of faking another investigation that turned up nothing.

Completely wrong, as always. The Democrats can call Mulvaney and Bolton as witnesses. And they will.

The only thing that matters in the House impeachment proceedings are the charges and the final vote. The witnesses in the impeachment proceedings do not have to be the same as the witnesses in the Senate trial. You're grasping at straws as always.

If you ask the 500 legal scholars, they will tell you that I'm correct. :lamo

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Your side could have filed suit and decided you didn't want to and took your chances and lost.

Look, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and with Trump at the helm, Lucy once again pulled that football away at the very last second and peanuts fell flat on his back. You wasted 3 months not going to court because, quite frankly, your side knew you would get hammered. Now, Ma and Pa Kettle are feigning upset that even though Trump has asserted executive privilege, he should forget all about that and let Ma and Pa get their way.

Speaking of which,these old fossils have always gotten their way and have't experienced shame, humiliation and defeat on this scale EVERRR!

Our side knows what is really happening. Ma Kettle knows her goose is OVER cooked and she has nothing at all to show the Senate, She is trying to buy some time for maybe a Christmas Miracle and for Santa Claus to drop some "evidence" in that empty bag. McConnell has given their collective of arrogant assassins the finger and told them that their kangaroo court is done, over, finiti. The Senate will take over if and when she delivers the bag of air. The trial will be smooth and efficient and take maybe a half hour or so. Here is how it will go after pleasantries are exchanged, There will be no speeches from constitutional scholars or arrogant Vidman types:

Q, to Trump haters: I see you are holding a bag. Is that for the court to see?
A FROM Trump haters: Yes your honor
Q. to Trump haters: Please hand that to the clerk, Clerk. Please take the contents out so that I can review them
(Clerk looks through bag, shakes it, turns it upside down and inside out and finds it empty)

Q, to Trump haters: I expected to see evidence. You brought an empty bag
A. From Trump haters: Yes, your honor but we did get testimony from others that they didn't much like Orange Man
Q, to Trump haters: The court asked for fact witnesses also. Please present them.
A. FROM Trump haters: Um,your honor, we have someone who said he presumed, assumed, speculated and did the jig.

Q. to Trump haters: Do you have anything else to present to the court in the way of FACTS or first hand knowledge>
A. From Trump haters: You want like REAL facts and stuff? We thought he could be impeached because

Q. to Clerk; Please take Ma and Pa Kettle and evil eyes Schiff directly to jail for impersonating someone with half a brain because you couldn't make one brain out of all three of them. Case DISMISSED!

Completely irrelevant. What happened before/during the impeachment proceedings has no bearing on the Senate trial. Bolton and Mulvaney will eventually testify or there will be no trial.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

For those of us who know absolutely nothing about the rules of evidence and witnesses I am going to put this in elementary terms so as not to repeat the same thing over and over.

1. NEVER in the history of ANY US Courtrooms has ANY person accused of a crime provided a defense and/or testimony when there are no witness testimony or evidence against them.

2. Only in the mind of an idiot could you ever expect ANYONE to testify against themselves when no evidence or witnesses testimony are provided against them

3. Only in the mind of an idiot would you think an innocent man would provide his own testimony to defend himself when there is no evidence or witness testimony against him.

4. Only in the mind of an idiot (Especially since Clinton testified in his impeachment) could you even conceive Executive Privilege could be used to stop testimony in a Federal Impeachment trial.

If that doesn't clear things up for the less intelligent then I suggest starting back at line one and reading through it until it gets through those thick craniums holding those little liberal brains.

Someone who believes Obama is a white supremacist is trying to explain legal jurisprudence to us. Sorry, trying not to laugh. :lamo

 

[Condor060]

It Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney can't defend the President who can? There will be no trial without witnesses and no "exoneration" for Trump either. That is Nancy's leverage and she will hold it over his head until she is good and ready.

What is it about the Liberal little brains that can't conceive our legal system. Unless Democrats provide witnesses with testimony, there is nothing to defend. Without a witness to make a claim, their is nothing to exonerate. They have no fact witnesses to anything as all the witnesses they provided for the hearings only have hearsay testimony and won't be aloud to testify in a federal court.

This is what happens when idiots gain a little power. They vote for impeachment, with ONLY Democrat votes, using witnesses that can't testify in court, without a single piece of evidence, and now think the rules of evidence and witnesses need to be changed to accommodate their own ignorance.

Sorry, It don't work that way and San Fran Nan can hold her worthless articles as long as she likes. Nobody is going to re-negotiate the terms of federal court to accommodate ignorance.

If Democrat leadership are so dumb that they didn't know their witnesses wouldn't be allowed in a real courtroom then they are far too stupid to be in a position of power.

If Democrat leadership knew that their hearsay witnesses wouldn't be able to testify in court but proceeded with an Impeachment vote anyway, that makes them criminal.

Either way, this is over and nobody cares about San Fran Nan refusing to provide her articles. It only makes her look stupid.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Democrats were in complete control of what witnesses were called and they decided to proceed without the testimony of Bolton and Mulveney. The idea that all of the sudden their testimony is vital is absurd. If their testimony was so vital, the House should have waited to hear from them before voting on impeachment. Yet they didnt. So all the liberal whining about their testimony is just that, liberal whining. Whats funny is that the true cultists here are all on the left. NOtice how they all make the identical demands and use the identical 'arguments' NOt one of them has an independent thought. They simp;y repeat what they hear their cult leaders say on TV then run here and pretend they came up with it on their own.

The Democrats didn't need Bolton and Mulvaney for the impeachment proceedings. They pressed on without them, which was their prerogative. For the trial, the Democrats want them to testify and they will testify.