Battle lines harden over Trump impeachment trial witnesses

[earlinclaifornia]

5 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

You are most certainly entitled to believe anything you like.

Same as I believe you are just as entitled to your opinion.

[TPI]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

How can the witness be so strong when he sent the "email" on the 25th and Sondeland said he heard about it on the 18th? It looks like the Dem's have inserted a "straw man" into the mix??

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Lungstib said:

Which this in no way will be. The system was devised before party allegiance overwhelmed senators leaving them unable to vote in an unprejudiced manner. Just look back at past recordings of what McConnell said about needing witnesses to have a proper trial at Clinton's impeachment and it all becomes clear. There is whats 'legal', necessary and obvious when its your party and then there is how you you view opposition. Its well out of hand, runs all the way through the courts where allegiance to a party is now needed to get appointed and is at its worst in the senate. You cannot have a trial in the senate, not one with a meaningful verdict. 

 

Just as Congress too voted on party lines. One only has to look at Pelosi's body language, and restrained facial botox expressions when she announced the vote results. Like a bitch on heat!

 

American citizens should be very worried at the clown circus their government and judicial system has become. It was there before Trump but he's the bull in the china shop whose antics have made it all more public.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Guilty or not, you don't have any trial without ALL witnesses and hearing all the evidence.

 

And you certainly don't have a Committee chairman answering questions directed at witnesses, disallowing questions he doesn't like based on his bias, and telling witnesses what they should and shouldn't say.

 

The Democrats are coming across as so desperate to impeach Trump that they are stage managing things to a micro extent rather than any interest in the actual facts and truth.

 

Come on, even the kindest person smells a rat with Biden Jr earning massive amounts as a director of a Ukraine organization when his dad, the VPOTUS, is closely involved with anti fraud and the Ukraine!

[Bluespunk]

26 minutes ago, TPI said:

How can the witness be so strong when he sent the "email" on the 25th and Sondeland said he heard about it on the 18th? It looks like the Dem's have inserted a "straw man" into the mix??

No, it looks like the republicans are scared of new witnesses being called. 

[thaicurious]

https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/20/most-voters-want-senate-to-call-more-witnesses-for-trumps-impeachment-trial/

54% said the Senate should call additional witnesses, a question that divides GOP voters but is backed by independents and Democrats....

 

The lion’s share of voters still back the Senate removing President Donald Trump from office...

 

The new survey, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, also found most voters appear to be siding with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to allow the chamber to issue subpoenas for four current and former Trump administration officials who did not appear when they were asked to testify during the House’s impeachment inquiry.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Consult

Morning Consult is a global, privately held technology and media company established in 2013. It was named one of the fastest growing technology companies in North America by Deloitte.[1] The company specializes in online survey research technology

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, it looks like the republicans are scared of new witnesses being called. 

Lindsey Graham has already played his hand and claims the witness's do not have to testify because of exutive privilege.

Edited December 23, 2019 by earlinclaifornia
clarity

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It was up to the house to do the investigation. The senate need only, IMO, vote on whatever the house sends to the senate. In any event, it would take the Lord Almighty coming down to change any senators mind now, so why waste any more time on this, IMO, farce?

The circus has gone on long enough, now they can just get on with voting, and get back to the election campaign.

It's not as though a not guilty vote will stop the anti Trump hysteria, which will probably keep on for the next 5 years.

 

Apparently there are no procedural rules for a senate trial, and the leaders of the senate can basically do whatever they like. Other than holding a vote, IMO there is no other requirement.

Those that don't like it can get a constitutional amendment.

All very interesting, but does nothing to negate my point...

[Mavideol]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

REPS completely contradicting themselves, first they criticized the house for going to fast and now they are requesting a FAST trial at the senate and not calling witness, so what is it black or white...

[Mavideol]

5 hours ago, Lungstib said:

Which this in no way will be. The system was devised before party allegiance overwhelmed senators leaving them unable to vote in an unprejudiced manner. Just look back at past recordings of what McConnell said about needing witnesses to have a proper trial at Clinton's impeachment and it all becomes clear. There is whats 'legal', necessary and obvious when its your party and then there is how you you view opposition. Its well out of hand, runs all the way through the courts where allegiance to a party is now needed to get appointed and is at its worst in the senate. You cannot have a trial in the senate, not one with a meaningful verdict. 

similar to Trump praising Pelosi couple years ago, saying she was the best and now she's the worse

[jany123]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

One Dem Senator is going to vote to acquit. Game over (Of course it's been over for quite some time)

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones says he'll vote to acquit President Trump if 'dots aren't connected'

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones dismissed concerns that he will lose his seat if he votes to remove President Trump in a Senate trial, but said he would acquit Trump if “dots aren't connected” over “gaps” in the impeachment case.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-senator-doug-jones-says-hell-vote-to-acquit-president-trump-if-dots-arent-connected-203903180.html

From your link...

I'm trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, then I think it's a serious matter. I think it's an impeachable matter,” Jones said. “But if those dots aren't connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too.”

 

maybe its just me... but this is exactly what should be expected of every single senator. This man has articulated what every senators duty is. Objectively listen, then decide and vote accordingly.

 

crowing over this is bizarre, given republican senators bragging that they will vote to acquit regardless.... dude... this link proves that the dems (or that one at least), are capable of doing their job impartially and in an unbiased manner... that dems can be trusted with matters of state.... what a pity that republicans can’t follow this mans lead.

[stevenl]

54 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And you certainly don't have a Committee chairman answering questions directed at witnesses, disallowing questions he doesn't like based on his bias, and telling witnesses what they should and shouldn't say.

 

The Democrats are coming across as so desperate to impeach Trump that they are stage managing things to a micro extent rather than any interest in the actual facts and truth.

 

Come on, even the kindest person smells a rat with Biden Jr earning massive amounts as a director of a Ukraine organization when his dad, the VPOTUS, is closely involved with anti fraud and the Ukraine!

So call witnesses like Giuliani, Pompeo and others, who are outside of Schumer's sphere of influence.

[Mavideol]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

"There's not much leverage in refusing to send us something we do not want." - Sen. Mitch McConnell 

just imagine for a minute and I mean imagine for a minute, if they let the guy get away with what he just did the first couple year in the job, now (again) imagine how much worse he will do (if he's re-elected)  in the next term, he already sold half of the US to Vlad, next term he will sell the other half, the guy is not fitted for the job

[Mavideol]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Waiting is bad for repubs as evidence is now coming out through other law suits that are relevant. Best now for dems to wait and it will force repubs to call witnesses.

 

what are repubs so afraid to find out.

couldn't have said it better.... why is Trump so afraid to show his taxes returns

[Mavideol]

4 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Guilty or not, you don't have any trial without ALL witnesses and hearing all the evidence.

yes you do.....if you are a Trump Republican  555

[jany123]

1 hour ago, TPI said:

How can the witness be so strong when he sent the "email" on the 25th and Sondeland said he heard about it on the 18th? It looks like the Dem's have inserted a "straw man" into the mix??

Maybe because this demonstrates a conspiracy. Sondland knew what trump intended to do a week before he did it. Surely that’s not hard to understand.

 

when I was in business, my associates (usually) all knew what I would do, before I did it.

 

further, testimony given indicated that this was the situation... the he would... vs had. This connects dots... connecting dots is what Jones wants.... now let’s see how it all plays out in the public if mad Mitch prevents credible witnesses with first hand knowledge, from testifying, vs rabbiting on about calling witnesses to discuss debunked conspiracy theories, as has been the GOP MO to date.

 

the senate is on trial... this will entertain... the stain on your flawed democracy may linger for years if the senate doesn’t act appropriately.

[jany123]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Even if they were to remove from office (which they won't), there's this from the Trump-hating San Francisco Gate:

 

Trump is remaking the federal judiciary

 

President Donald Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November's election.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-is-remaking-the-federal-judiciary-14924789.php

 

 

Wow... T rump D elision S yndrome gone wild.

 

”rigging” something to effect the future is not a legacy to be proud of. It’s like a carnival attraction where the carnies rig the games such that the public loose. Every player despises those that rig a game.... using hoops too small to go over the object... putting sticky stuff on the bottom of pins... Stacking the judiciary.

 

And your now crowing about the trump rigging things such that the public looses.... it amazes.

[jany123]

4 hours ago, nervona81732 said:

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

Really? Does your rock have a street address?

 

for everyone it’s different.... for me it’s because of its unilateral and arguably irresponsible decision making on matters that effect world affairs.

[elmrfudd]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

Wait, this was a life or death threat to national security wasn't it? The case was clear and the evidence overwhelming right?..... Or it was a political hit job. A failed one 

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Maybe because this demonstrates a conspiracy. Sondland knew what trump intended to do a week before he did it. Surely that’s not hard to understand.

 

when I was in business, my associates (usually) all knew what I would do, before I did it.

 

further, testimony given indicated that this was the situation... the he would... vs had. This connects dots... connecting dots is what Jones wants.... now let’s see how it all plays out in the public if mad Mitch prevents credible witnesses with first hand knowledge, from testifying, vs rabbiting on about calling witnesses to discuss debunked conspiracy theories, as has been the GOP MO to date.

 

the senate is on trial... this will entertain... the stain on your flawed democracy may linger for years if the senate doesn’t act appropriately.

You mean act the same way you see it in your own biased opinion 

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Wait, this was a life or death threat to national security wasn't it? The case was clear and the evidence overwhelming right?..... Or it was a political hit job. A failed one 

What has any of that got to do with my post?

[jany123]

37 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean act the same way you see it in your own biased opinion 

Yes... exactly... my opinion is indeed influenced by my bias.

 

we have (arguably) heard way to much about the (arguably biased) investigation (but investigations are often biased, as authorities try to determine who and what) which “implicates” the trump. It could all be circumstantial fluff... who knows if witnesses are disallowed or refuse to cooperate.

 

There now needs to be a trial. A trial should be fair and unbiased... unpartisan and transparent. That is my bias, that I believe justice should not be influenced by wealth or power, but applied evenly to all (there’s probably wording in your constitution to that effect) citizens of the republic.

 

following that... apply a partisan vote, (if an unbiased and transparent trial convicts for wrongdoing) if y’all like, to not remove it from office. That’s the political bit where partisanship has a role.

[jany123]

49 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Wait, this was a life or death threat to national security wasn't it? The case was clear and the evidence overwhelming right?..... Or it was a political hit job. A failed one 

No it was not... that’s some kind of anti investigation spin... it was about high crimes and misdemeanors... ones that also influence national security through rigged elections and bribery, in defiance of constitutional law.

 

at trial, constitutional law needs qualifying to determine innocence or guilt

 

crikey... how hard is it to understand outside of an authoritarian state;

crime committed

felon identified

investigation conducted

trial held

verdict applied

sentencing

 

the trump is using corruption as a pretext for with holding monies... ironically an biassed trial is corrupt. You can’t complain about corruption in one breath, whilst encouraging it in the other, without appearing like a punt

[earlinclaifornia]

4 hours ago, TPI said:

How can the witness be so strong when he sent the "email" on the 25th and Sondeland said he heard about it on the 18th? It looks like the Dem's have inserted a "straw man" into the mix??

Let me share that statement you'r referencing about questioning the strength of witness as it seems inaccurate. What is reported is this: A new email obtained by the Center for Public Integrity and released Saturday shows Michael Duffey, associate director for National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), informed the Pentagon of the freeze on $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump's call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25.

[Thingamabob]

What we need is the Bidens on the stand so that they can be asked to explain how they got so rich so quickly in Ukraine.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

What we need is the Bidens on the stand so that they can be asked to explain how they got so rich so quickly in Ukraine.

Is it the Bidens' trial? If you want them to be investigated, ask the Republicans, they control the DOJ.

 

Why do Trump and Trumpers always want the Biden case to be dealt with outside the normal justice system: on TV, during someone else's trial, etc....?

[candide]

4 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/20/most-voters-want-senate-to-call-more-witnesses-for-trumps-impeachment-trial/

54% said the Senate should call additional witnesses, a question that divides GOP voters but is backed by independents and Democrats....

 

The lion’s share of voters still back the Senate removing President Donald Trump from office...

 

The new survey, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, also found most voters appear to be siding with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to allow the chamber to issue subpoenas for four current and former Trump administration officials who did not appear when they were asked to testify during the House’s impeachment inquiry.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Consult

Morning Consult is a global, privately held technology and media company established in 2013. It was named one of the fastest growing technology companies in North America by Deloitte.[1] The company specializes in online survey research technology

 

 

It shows people are not fooled by Trump's lame arguments. Only 27% of respondents adopt the Republicans' position.

 

Trump and Trumpers justified the blocking of witnesses by the lame claim that the rules applied during the impeachment investigations were unfair (rules that the Republicans voted in 2015 in order to make it easier to investigate the WH).

 

Now they cannot make the same lame claim in order to refuse testimonies, so if they do it, they will shown to the public as what they really are, a bunch of hypocrites!

[Sujo]

Why is it that trump supporters do not want evidence ftom people with direct knowledge.

 

Are they afraid to know the truth? Do they want to know if the president is corrupt?

 

Or is it simply they chose him and dont care what he does.

[Sujo]

Just now, candide said:

It shows people are not fooled by Trump's lame arguments. Only 27% of respondents adopt the Republicans' position.

 

Trump and Trumpers justified the blocking of witnesses by the lame claim that the rules applied during the impeachment investigations were unfair (rules that the Republicans voted in 2015 in order to make it easier to investigate the WH).

 

Now they cannot make the same lame claim in order to refuse testimonies, so if they do it, they will shown to the public as what they really are, a bunch of hypocrites!

If they complain the investigation was unfair, simple fix. Call the witnesses that know about it. Thats fair.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why is it that trump supporters do not want evidence ftom people with direct knowledge.

 

Are they afraid to know the truth? Do they want to know if the president is corrupt?

 

Or is it simply they chose him and dont care what he does.

"Or is it simply they chose him and dont care what he does."

This, but at the same time they don't want to be directly confronted with it.