Why not call the witnesses requested by the Dems?

[independentusa]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

 

[eohrnberger]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

In the impeachment process, isn't the House supposed to do the investigation and the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate to hear the results of the House investigation and sit in judgment of the case presented?

Why should the Senate exceed their role and do part of the House's role which they were clearly incapable or fulfilling?

 

[Condor060]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

First off, Democrats have no witnesses that can testify in a federal court. Every witness they called in the hearings are hearsay witnesses only. Every one of them stated under Republican questioning they had no personal knowledge of any impeachable crimes.

Second, Since Democrats don't have a single witness that can testify, there is no need to have witnesses testify for the defense. No where in the history of this country does the defense put on witnesses when there are no witnesses to testify to any crimes.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

If they presented all the documents and witnesses requested, the Trump Mob would be in deep doodoo. They'll hide everything that reveals, by parties with first hand information, that Trump is guilty of all charges and likely much more. They're running scared, afraid to testify. If Trump was innocent, he would be the first one to sit on the stand and make his case.....but he hides behind a keyboard and his mindless sycophants. I doubt he has immunity and I doubt he can conceal all this evidence for much longer...we'll see.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

First off, Democrats have no witnesses that can testify in a federal court. Every witness they called in the hearings are hearsay witnesses only. Every one of them stated under Republican questioning they had no personal knowledge of any impeachable crimes.

Second, Since Democrats don't have a single witness that can testify, there is no need to have witnesses testify for the defense. No where in the history of this country does the defense put on witnesses when there are no witnesses to testify to any crimes.

Wrong. Here, let me correct you once again. You can thank me later:

More than 500 legal scholars sign letter saying Trump committed 'impeachable conduct' - CNNPolitics

The Democrats did an absolutely splendid job proving their case during the impeachment proceedings, according to these 500 legal scholars.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Wrong. Here, let me correct you once again. You can thank me later:

More than 500 legal scholars sign letter saying Trump committed 'impeachable conduct' - CNNPolitics

The Democrats did an absolutely splendid job proving their case during the impeachment proceedings, according to these 500 legal scholars.

Yes, and "hundreds" of so-called professionals, medical, mental health, educators, and "former and current members of government" signed similar types of letters back in 2016, claiming various reasons Trump should not be allowed to become President. That was BEFORE he was even sworn in. :roll:

There were 65 million citizens who voted against Trump in 2016. You are impressed by a few hundred "legal scholars" signing another "letter?" :coffeepap:

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Yes, and "hundreds" of so-called professionals, medical, mental health, educators, and "former and current members of government" signed similar types of letters back in 2016, claiming various reasons Trump should not be allowed to become President. That was BEFORE he was even sworn in. :roll:

There were 65 million citizens who voted against Trump in 2016. You are impressed by a few hundred "legal scholars" signing another "letter?" :coffeepap:

Those people who signed the letters back in 2016 were correct. Trump should NOT be President. He is bad for the country, as the past 3 years have illustrated.

He is mentally unfit for the job, he is corrupt, he is a racist, and he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.

 

[Bullseye]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

Trump may not have SAID "executive privilege" but you can bet his lawyers and advisors will if the Senate calls any anyone or declines requests for documents.

 

[Bullseye]

Those people who signed the letters back in 2016 were correct. Trump should NOT be President. He is bad for the country, as the past 3 years have illustrated.

He is mentally unfit for the job, he is corrupt, he is a racist, and he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.

You just got to get over it. Stop fighting the 2016 election and start looking forward to the 2020 election. You're sinking deeper and deeper into the swamp and all you guys to is pick up more rocks.

 

[Moot]

In the impeachment process, isn't the House supposed to do the investigation and the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate to hear the results of the House investigation and sit in judgment of the case presented?

Why should the Senate exceed their role and do part of the House's role which they were clearly incapable or fulfilling?

So what kind of trial will the Senate have if the Senators aren't allowed to question the fact based witnesses such as Mulvaney, Duffy, McGabe and Bolton? How can the president prove his innocence if he's not allowed to be questioned under oath? Until those witnesses and Trump testify under oath he will never be truly exonerated. Trump refused to testify under oath to the Special Counsel as well and so Mueller couldn't exonerate him there, either. In fact, there's an investigation going on right now to see if Trump lied on his written answers.

Trump written answers to Mueller investigation investigated by House of Representatives to see if president lied - CBS News

 

[Port & Starboard]

Wrong. Here, let me correct you once again. You can thank me later:

More than 500 legal scholars sign letter saying Trump committed 'impeachable conduct' - CNNPolitics

The Democrats did an absolutely splendid job proving their case during the impeachment proceedings, according to these 500 legal scholars.

500 Democrat lawyers.........................that's a big whoooop!

You can get 500 lawyers to chew acorns while sitting in a busy intersection if they get some sort of benefit.

 

[Helix]

Get Tweety under oath.

 

[snakestretcher]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

From what I understand of US law only the president can hide behind executive privilege. His employees cannot. The only reason Trump is acting this way is from fear. 'Executive privilege' is mentioned nowhere in the US Constitution.

 

[The AntiDonald]

500 Democrat lawyers.........................that's a big whoooop!

You can get 500 lawyers to chew acorns while sitting in a busy intersection if they get some sort of benefit.

And 1000 ex-prosecutors? No matter what happens with Trump, whether removed or re-elected, the truth will eventually be known. Trump has the stain of impeachment on himself and his complicit family as well as all the complicit GOP members that have stuck with him. They will all go down in history as the corrupt party of Trump.

It's just a shame our country has to put up with all Trumps chaos. It's been constant since he took the oath. I long for the day we can rid ourselves of this corrupt criminal and move on.

 

[Port & Starboard]

And 1000 ex-prosecutors? No matter what happens with Trump, whether removed or re-elected, the truth will eventually be known. Trump has the stain of impeachment on himself and his complicit family as well as all the complicit GOP members that have stuck with him. They will all go down in history as the corrupt party of Trump.

It's just a shame our country has to put up with all Trumps chaos. It's been constant since he took the oath. I long for the day we can rid ourselves of this corrupt criminal and move on.

I thought liberals were ok with a little corruption here and there

Wiped hard drives.

Smashed cell phones.

Missing sim cards.

Missing lap tops.

FBI lying to FISA courts.

Obviously you do agree with corruption.

 

[ataraxia]

First off, Democrats have no witnesses that can testify in a federal court. Every witness they called in the hearings are hearsay witnesses only. Every one of them stated under Republican questioning they had no personal knowledge of any impeachable crimes.

Second, Since Democrats don't have a single witness that can testify, there is no need to have witnesses testify for the defense. No where in the history of this country does the defense put on witnesses when there are no witnesses to testify to any crimes.

So wait, let me see if I have this straight: they don’t have any direct witnesses because the Whitehorse has blocked them from testifying, and they can’t compel them to testify because of executive privilege.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like wiping your behind with the “system of checks and balances” intended by the founders in the Constitution.

 

[ataraxia]

I thought liberals were ok with a little corruption here and there

Wiped hard drives.

Smashed cell phones.

Missing sim cards.

Missing lap tops.

FBI lying to FISA courts.

Obviously you do agree with corruption.

Don’t forget all that evidence of Obama’s secret Kenyan birth certificate that Trump told us his top people were finding. Can’t wait to finally find out! :lamo

 

[Fletch]

So wait, let me see if I have this straight: they don’t have any direct witnesses because the Whitehorse has blocked them from testifying, and they can’t compel them to testify because of executive privilege.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like wiping your behind with the “system of checks and balances” intended by the founders in the Constitution.

The check and balance in such cases are provided by the courts. The House didnt want to wait for the courts to weigh in though. So take it up with your tribe. They are the ones who didnt want to follow the Constitutional process.

 

[snakestretcher]

Don’t forget all that evidence of Obama’s secret Kenyan birth certificate that Trump told us his top people were finding. Can’t wait to finally find out! :lamo

Yes, but it's only been ten years since he announced his fictitious 'people' had found 'unbelievable' dirt on Obama. I guess another ten year wait won't hurt!

HuffPost is now part of Verizon Media

 

[Condor060]

So wait, let me see if I have this straight: they don’t have any direct witnesses because the Whitehorse has blocked them from testifying, and they can’t compel them to testify because of executive privilege.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like wiping your behind with the “system of checks and balances” intended by the founders in the Constitution.

They can compel witnesses to testify in a Senate Trial. They compelled Clinton didn't they. And they could have forced the issue in the Congressional hearings as well but they decided not to go through the courts because this HAD to be done immediately. So for the first time in History these idiots Impeached a president without a single fact witness who can testify in court.

Pelosi tried to negotiate the rules of evidence and witness testimony and McConnell told her he wasn't putting on any witnesses. If Pelosi doesn't have a single witness who can testify in court, why would you put on a string of witnesses to rebut something that isn't there?

Now they look like the idiots they really are and why she will NEVER turn over her articles. It would immediately exonerate Trump.

 

[Hypothetical]

They are supposed to be the eye witnesses to what happened in the Ukraine cse . Please do not say executive privilege as Trump has never said he was claiming executive privilege. He claims total presidential immunity. Now tell me where in the constitution it says that the president has "total presidential immunity" please. And even if he did claim executive privilege, it ends when the impeachment trial begins. So tell me a good and "logical" reason that these witnesses should not testify to insure that all evidence is available to those senators deciding the case?

why would they? so the Dems can latch onto some misspoken word or sentence and say "look see Trump is GUILTY!" BS, if the house wanted to hear from those witnesses they should have taken the time to go to SCOTUS to compel them and been more thorough in their investigation. as it is they have nothing. I see no reason Reps should do their job for them.. after all, as we always hear, this is a POLITICAL process.

 

[Condor060]

Wrong. Here, let me correct you once again. You can thank me later:

More than 500 legal scholars sign letter saying Trump committed 'impeachable conduct' - CNNPolitics

The Democrats did an absolutely splendid job proving their case during the impeachment proceedings, according to these 500 legal scholars.

And how many of your 500 legal scholars will testify? NONE.

How many of your legal scholars are witnesses to anything? NONE

How many witnesses do you have that can testify? NONE

ANd what is the evidence you have for a trial? NONE

THis is what happens when you kneel at the altar of CNN. Weren't these the same 500 Legal Scholars that said the evidence of Trump being a planted Russia asset would remove him from office right before the Mueller report? I remember that petition as well.

(Hint) A Petition isn't evidence of anything. Its as worthless as all 17 witnesses who testified in the hearings. An impeachment article is supposed to carry as much power as an indictment. When was the last time a prosecutor got an indictment against a defendant, then refused to proceed with a trial.

(Hint) NEVER in the history of the country.

By the way, just how many petitions have been signed stating Trump is (X) since he took office? Democrats are the most gullible people on the planet.

 

[Hypothetical]

So wait, let me see if I have this straight: they don’t have any direct witnesses because the Whitehorse has blocked them from testifying, and they can’t compel them to testify because of executive privilege.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound at all like wiping your behind with the “system of checks and balances” intended by the founders in the Constitution.

the SCOTUS can absolutely compel them to testify, if they deem it correct. for some reason the dems didn't want to wait on a thorough process to do so, so too bad for them, because their evidence is crap as of right now.

 

[Paradoxical]

Those people who signed the letters back in 2016 were correct. Trump should NOT be President. He is bad for the country, as the past 3 years have illustrated.

He is mentally unfit for the job, he is corrupt, he is a racist, and he is a traitor doing Putin's bidding.

RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA

PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN

Polly wanna cracker? AWKKK AWKKK

 

[Paradoxical]

And how many of your 500 legal scholars will testify? NONE.

How many of your legal scholars are witnesses to anything? NONE

How many witnesses do you have that can testify? NONE

ANd what is the evidence you have for a trial? NONE

THis is what happens when you kneel at the altar of CNN. Weren't these the same 500 Legal Scholars that said the evidence of Trump being a planted Russia asset would remove him from office right before the Mueller report? I remember that petition as well.

(Hint) A Petition isn't evidence of anything. Its as worthless as all 17 witnesses who testified in the hearings. An impeachment article is supposed to carry as much power as an indictment. When was the last time a prosecutor got an indictment against a defendant, then refused to proceed with a trial.

(Hint) NEVER in the history of the country.

By the way, just how many petitions have been signed stating Trump is (X) since he took office? Democrats are the most gullible people on the planet.

All 500 of those witnesses are gubment employee libs