• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Your Guess on the vote in the Senate for additional witnesses and information?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Before I get to my guess i will tell a black humorous joke. It goes, that the vote against conviction in the Senate will be 53-47, unless ttump comes to the Senate and shoots a Republican Senator, then the vote would be 52-47. That is what i think the votes will be on whether the Senate will vote for additiional witnesses or informatio, 53-47. Do you think any of the GOP Senators will cross the line?
 
That gives them room for 1 or 2 strategic dissents to create the illusion that this isn't bipartisan. Collins and Romney maybe.
 
They will symbolically get 2 and fail 51 to 49. Although as it stands the obstruction of Congress article seems go be even more powerful.

Trump is the only president in history to deny any documents or testimony at all.

The Republicans are fools to vote no. They'd be voting themselves less power.
 
Before I get to my guess i will tell a black humorous joke. It goes, that the vote against conviction in the Senate will be 53-47, unless ttump comes to the Senate and shoots a Republican Senator, then the vote would be 52-47. That is what i think the votes will be on whether the Senate will vote for additiional witnesses or informatio, 53-47. Do you think any of the GOP Senators will cross the line?
I think its possible several Democrat senators vote with the Republicans against removing him. That is the vote that matters. I dont see aditional witness testimony swaying anyone either way.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Before I get to my guess i will tell a black humorous joke. It goes, that the vote against conviction in the Senate will be 53-47, unless ttump comes to the Senate and shoots a Republican Senator, then the vote would be 52-47. That is what i think the votes will be on whether the Senate will vote for additiional witnesses or informatio, 53-47. Do you think any of the GOP Senators will cross the line?

it's my understanding they will decide whether its possible an impeachable crime could have been committed and then go from there... (vote on witnesses, etc)?

but i have not been able to watch the whole fiasco...

it seems i have watched enough of it, though... I mean, the Ds are using up all their allotted 24 hours.. just going on and on and repeating ad nauseum..

I mean how many different ways can you say

Trump is bad and needs to be removed because We the Party of Absolute Perfection lost in '16?
 
Trump is the only president in history to deny any documents or testimony at all.

Just going to let that statement speak for itself. You are severally uninformed.
 
Just going to let that statement speak for itself. You are severally uninformed.

In an impeachment inquiry, he is the only one.

The only one.
 
it's my understanding they will decide whether its possible an impeachable crime could have been committed and then go from there... (vote on witnesses, etc)?

but i have not been able to watch the whole fiasco...

it seems i have watched enough of it, though... I mean, the Ds are using up all their allotted 24 hours.. just going on and on and repeating ad nauseum..

I mean how many different ways can you say

Trump is bad and needs to be removed because We the Party of Absolute Perfection lost in '16?

At the beginning of this controversy I suggested that Democrats keep in mind the maxim: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it". Sooner or later, Biden and his son would be swept into this and the outcome is not going to look good for anyone.

At this point there is ONLY one offer the Democrats can make if they want witnesses: agree that the GOP can call the Biden's and the WBlower in return for Demo witnesses.

I doubt they will have the spine to do it. Therefore their implicit demand for just their select witnesses will shred the last tatter of credibility they may have had left.

But if that is the trade, then we are in for a ride.
 
Just going to let that statement speak for itself. You are severally uninformed.

Actually, none of the president's that were under investigation ofr impeachment denid their staffs the right to testify and almost all sent documents. None actually just stopped everything. If you listened to any of the Dems you would have seen that most of our forefathers said that the president had to give up such when being investigated for impeachment.
 
Name another one.

You should stop listening to CNN and the idiots making stupid claims on the floor of the Senate.

Kennedy

1962 – directed Sec. of Defense not to provide the names of individuals who wrote or
edited speeches to Senate panel

1962 – directed military adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a
congressional committee investigating Bay of Pigs affair

Johnson

Three instances occurred in which executive branch officials refused to supply congressional panel with information about presidential actions. Johnson did not invoke privilege himself nor
did officials claim he ordered their actions

Nixon

1970 – directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel

1971 – directed Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military
assistance programs

1972 – asserted to prevent a White House advisor from testifying before Senate panel about
an International Telephone and Telegraph settlement

Reagan

1981 – directed Sec. of Interior to assert privilege before congressional panel investigating
Canadian oil leases

1982 – directed EPA Administrator to claim privilege before congressional committee
regarding Superfund enforcement

Clinton

1995 – asserted during Senate Whitewater investigation over notes kept by White House counsel

1996 – asserted before a congressional committee during Travelgate investigation

1996 – asserted before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo

1996 – asserted before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents

Obama

2012 – asserted by Attorney General in response to congressional investigation into
Operation Fast and Furious

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
 
Actually, none of the president's that were under investigation ofr impeachment denid their staffs the right to testify and almost all sent documents. None actually just stopped everything. If you listened to any of the Dems you would have seen that most of our forefathers said that the president had to give up such when being investigated for impeachment.

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
 
At the beginning of this controversy I suggested that Democrats keep in mind the maxim: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it". Sooner or later, Biden and his son would be swept into this and the outcome is not going to look good for anyone.

At this point there is ONLY one offer the Democrats can make if they want witnesses: agree that the GOP can call the Biden's and the WBlower in return for Demo witnesses.

I doubt they will have the spine to do it. Therefore their implicit demand for just their select witnesses will shred the last tatter of credibility they may have had left.

But if that is the trade, then we are in for a ride.

I thin that the GOp will just say no, because calling the Bidens could actually hurt Trump and the GOP rahter then help. As far as the WB, that would certainly hurt Trump and the GOP as they would be seen as breaking another law to force him to testify. I will tell you there will be no witnesses and the GOP is willing to trust that there are enought Trump cultists out there to keep them in office, although I would not like to be collins. At this point I think she is toast.
 
You should stop listening to CNN and the idiots making stupid claims on the floor of the Senate.

Kennedy

1962 – directed Sec. of Defense not to provide the names of individuals who wrote or
edited speeches to Senate panel

1962 – directed military adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a
congressional committee investigating Bay of Pigs affair

Johnson

Three instances occurred in which executive branch officials refused to supply congressional panel with information about presidential actions. Johnson did not invoke privilege himself nor
did officials claim he ordered their actions

Nixon

1970 – directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel

1971 – directed Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military
assistance programs

1972 – asserted to prevent a White House advisor from testifying before Senate panel about
an International Telephone and Telegraph settlement

Reagan

1981 – directed Sec. of Interior to assert privilege before congressional panel investigating
Canadian oil leases

1982 – directed EPA Administrator to claim privilege before congressional committee
regarding Superfund enforcement

Clinton

1995 – asserted during Senate Whitewater investigation over notes kept by White House counsel

1996 – asserted before a congressional committee during Travelgate investigation

1996 – asserted before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo

1996 – asserted before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents

Obama

2012 – asserted by Attorney General in response to congressional investigation into
Operation Fast and Furious

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Trump did not asset Executive Privilege with regard to the House Inquiries and Impeachment. Thanks for your long meaningless listing.
 
Trump did not asset Executive Privilege with regard to the House Inquiries and Impeachment. Thanks for your long meaningless listing.

Anytime he refuses he is exercising Executive Privilege. Oh, wait, you thought he filed some formal document? lol You must be watching the idiots on the Senate floor.

What a bunch of baboons.
 
You should stop listening to CNN and the idiots making stupid claims on the floor of the Senate.

Kennedy

1962 – directed Sec. of Defense not to provide the names of individuals who wrote or
edited speeches to Senate panel

1962 – directed military adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a
congressional committee investigating Bay of Pigs affair

Johnson

Three instances occurred in which executive branch officials refused to supply congressional panel with information about presidential actions. Johnson did not invoke privilege himself nor
did officials claim he ordered their actions

Nixon

1970 – directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel

1971 – directed Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military
assistance programs

1972 – asserted to prevent a White House advisor from testifying before Senate panel about
an International Telephone and Telegraph settlement

Reagan

1981 – directed Sec. of Interior to assert privilege before congressional panel investigating
Canadian oil leases

1982 – directed EPA Administrator to claim privilege before congressional committee
regarding Superfund enforcement

Clinton

1995 – asserted during Senate Whitewater investigation over notes kept by White House counsel

1996 – asserted before a congressional committee during Travelgate investigation

1996 – asserted before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo

1996 – asserted before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents

Obama

2012 – asserted by Attorney General in response to congressional investigation into
Operation Fast and Furious

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

So not one actually denied all documents and all testimony in an impeachment inquiry.

Your narrative is dead. Your defenses are nonexistent.

At this stage. Just say it. Youd impeach and remove dem for this but not a republican.
 
My guess has been that the GOP Senate has made its bed. Its going down with the good ship Trumpkin.

The polling numbers for witnesses and documents are extraordinarily high for this divided environment. 69% of Republicans want witnesses and documents with the numbers only higher for dems and independents.

But it won't matter. The GOP has made its bed. The evidence will keep coming out after acquittal and there will be hell to pay for acquittal without witnesses and documents. Lets face it, Trump will just continue to ignore laws and norms and the very Constitution itself because he is a thug, a crook. So he will do something equally egregious and claim it was perfect. Too much time remains between now and November and DonDon has an itchy trigger finger.
 
Actually, none of the president's that were under investigation ofr impeachment denid their staffs the right to testify and almost all sent documents. None actually just stopped everything. If you listened to any of the Dems you would have seen that most of our forefathers said that the president had to give up such when being investigated for impeachment.

I rate this as disingenuous. Only three Presidents have been impeached. Of modern Presidents subjected to impeachment attempts (Truman, Reagan, Bush Jr., Nixon) three of the investigations died in committee or never made to the committee. One that did, Nixon, repeatedly invoked executive privilege.

And Clinton, in particular, didn't need to invoke anything because he was already under criminal investigation and the information obtained by a special prosecutor (although he or his wife obviously "lost" the billing records).

So the record for actual investigations for impeachment is confined to TWO other Presidents...Clinton and Nixon.
 
Last edited:
You should stop listening to CNN and the idiots making stupid claims on the floor of the Senate.

Kennedy

1962 – directed Sec. of Defense not to provide the names of individuals who wrote or
edited speeches to Senate panel

1962 – directed military adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a
congressional committee investigating Bay of Pigs affair

Johnson

Three instances occurred in which executive branch officials refused to supply congressional panel with information about presidential actions. Johnson did not invoke privilege himself nor
did officials claim he ordered their actions

Nixon

1970 – directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel

1971 – directed Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military
assistance programs

1972 – asserted to prevent a White House advisor from testifying before Senate panel about
an International Telephone and Telegraph settlement

Reagan

1981 – directed Sec. of Interior to assert privilege before congressional panel investigating
Canadian oil leases

1982 – directed EPA Administrator to claim privilege before congressional committee
regarding Superfund enforcement

Clinton

1995 – asserted during Senate Whitewater investigation over notes kept by White House counsel

1996 – asserted before a congressional committee during Travelgate investigation

1996 – asserted before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo

1996 – asserted before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents

Obama

2012 – asserted by Attorney General in response to congressional investigation into
Operation Fast and Furious

Assertions of Executive Privilege from Kennedy to Obama - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

All specific assertions of privilege. No blanket denial of EVERYTHING.

Not to mention Trump hasn't asserted privilege. He's just refusing to cooperate because Trump.
 
All specific assertions of privilege. No blanket denial of EVERYTHING.

Not to mention Trump hasn't asserted privilege. He's just refusing to cooperate because Trump.

Oh, so you're one of those who think he needs to file some document to exercise EP? lol
 
So not one actually denied all documents and all testimony in an impeachment inquiry.

Your narrative is dead. Your defenses are nonexistent.

At this stage. Just say it. Youd impeach and remove dem for this but not a republican.

I wouldn't impeach anyone for exercising EP. Only Dem's attempt stupid stuff like that.
 
Anytime he refuses he is exercising Executive Privilege. Oh, wait, you thought he filed some formal document? lol You must be watching the idiots on the Senate floor.

What a bunch of baboons.

Not true. He has to claim an Executive Privilege and he has to do it with specificity. How can you come here and post like you know that the frig you are talking about.

There is no such thing as a blanket privilege to just say NO to all documents and all witnesses and there is no court remedy for a President who simply says no. The only remedy in that case is Impeachment which Trump compelled all by his lonesome. He wanted this. He claimed it would help him win reelection. The way this is playing it, he is not gaining support out of this Impeachment. All he is doing is sating his ghoulish base. Good luck with that come November.
 
Back
Top Bottom