Battle lines harden over Trump impeachment trial witnesses

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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

Exactly! They also complained that witnesses were never Trumpers (without any proof). Let's call 'always Trumpers' such as Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc... in order to make up for this injustice! ????

[Thingamabob]

Time for the Bidens to explain how they became so rich in Ukraine.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Time for the Bidens to explain how they became so rich in Ukraine.

How about DoJ opens an investigation?

[candide]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

How about DoJ opens an investigation?

It seems Republicans are covering him up because they never want to open an investigation into Biden. ????

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

It seems Republicans are covering him up because they never want to open an investigation into Biden. ????

Of course they don't. It will show no crime committed and take away their 'but but but' defense.

[Cryingdick]

7 hours ago, Mavideol said:

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

 

It's going to be something spectacular when Trump wins again and is handed a mandate. Keep the senate and a very good chance of taking the house. 13 more court appointments last day of the session because dem lawmakers wanted to go home for the holiday and waived the right to contest them

 

So with a newly stacked court and both chambers you ain't see nothing yet. The candidates running against him are so bereft of substance that media sites that support them are too ashamed to even cover the last debate. 

 

The dems should have gone to the courts to compel the witnesses they wanted to testify. They needed a ruling on executive privilege and that would still be the case in the senate.

 

They made a huge tactical mistake by not doing that before voting. Anybody saying Pelosi is having some stroke of genius is crazy. I will give her credit for seeing the problem but a fatal mistake has already been made. They are simply making fools of themselves now.

 

Not sure what happens if Pelosi doesn't send the articles but she is welcome to frame them and hang them on the mantle. If they aren't sent that's the end of the matter. 

[Cryingdick]

54 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Of course they don't. It will show no crime committed and take away their 'but but but' defense.

 

Well if it isn't a legal proceeding involving a crime then yeah, well, that's just like an opinion, man. 

[HuskerDo]

10 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Many are trump supporter haters, are you listening? Anybody paying attention knows his approval has never gone above the 43% election approval. trump is exactly who he revealed he was. Supporters are the problem, don't blame him.

"Many are trump supporter haters"...…. aahhhhh, so they hate the Trump supporters but not Trump himself. Now that makes zero sense.

[HuskerDo]

7 hours ago, Mavideol said:

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

"similar to Trump praising Pelosi couple years ago"...… did you notice his "tongue in cheek" when he said that and the short chuckle afterwards?

[HuskerDo]

11 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Many are trump supporter haters, are you listening? Anybody paying attention knows his approval has never gone above the 43% election approval. trump is exactly who he revealed he was. Supporters are the problem, don't blame him.

"Anybody paying attention knows his approval has never gone above the 43% election approval"...…. are these the same polls that indicated Trump wouldn't run last election? Are they the same polls that said, after he announced he was running, he had no chance of winning? Are they the same polls that, after he became the Rep nominee, indicated the Dems nominee would crush him in the election? 

 

The "polls" underestimated the deplorables in a very big way as they are doing again.

 

[thaicurious]

8 hours ago, 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!

I think that's mostly right though particularly by that poll, I was pleasantly surprised with the Republican numbers 43 to 39 in favor of more witness testimony at the Senate trial.

 

It's sad when people ignore facts. But at least here we find a sign that maybe they want to see them.

 

If the Democracy is working & if there are more good people than bad, the facts will overcome the frauds.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, jany123 said:

now let’s see how it all plays out in the public if mad Mitch prevents credible witnesses with first hand knowledge,

IMO not a single mind will be changed against Trump. However, this entire farce is probably turning voters against the Dems.

If Trump is not convicted, expect another 5 years of the Donald.

Nothing to fear.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, jany123 said:

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.

Seriously?

All of Washington is politically biased, one way or the other, IMO.

A POLITICAL trial in the senate is going to voted on POLITICALLY.

Perhaps you thought the trial was going to be run like a criminal one?

[IAMHERE]

So which of the Senators are up for reelection this next cycle? Those are the ones that may incur the wrath of voters if they choose politics over their home voters. 

[mogandave]

16 hours ago, candide said:

 

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!

To be clear, I think anyone (guilty or innocent) a fool to cooperate with someone trying to prosecute them, except inasmuch as it can benefit them directly.
 

There is nothing any of the witnesses could have said, or any taped played that would have changed the outcome or changed the minds if anyone that has been calling for his impeachment since the election. 
 

Do you not agree? 
 

If not, please tell me what someone could have said, or what could have been on the tape that would change your mind about Trump needing to be impeached. 
 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

So which of the Senators are up for reelection this next cycle? Those are the ones that may incur the wrath of voters if they choose politics over their home voters. 

If they have any sense, GOP senators up for reelection will acquit or be de selected, IMO.

[Saint Nick]

15 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Time for the Bidens to explain how they became so rich in Ukraine.

Repeating the same stuff all over again, doesn't make it valid or right...or even interesting!

[PhonThong]

On 12/23/2019 at 5:30 AM, Bluespunk said:

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

Why should they? The Dems have no leverage. 

[Bluespunk]

Just now, PhonThong said:

Why should they? The Dems have no leverage. 

Ah, maga indeed. 

[PhonThong]

On 12/23/2019 at 7:39 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Be assured Mitch McConnell doesn’t want to go near the impeachment trial.

 

How many ‘game plays’ has he proposed already?

 

And in the background court battles continue to gain access to/deny access to more evidence and more witnesses to more crimes.

 

Sure Mitch, we know you don’t want any of this, but you have no choice in the matter.

Sure he does. He runs the Senate, not Pelosi!

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Nancy, has absolutely no say in what happens with the Senate. You can fool yourself all you want.

She already has. Mitch has softened his stance. Its also driving trump crazy because he wants all the bells and whistles which is also putting pressure on mitch.

 

the longer she delays the more she will get.

[ThaiBunny]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

the longer she delays the more she will get.

A common technique in many contexts

[thaicurious]

23 hours ago, jany123 said:

There now needs to be a trial. A trial should be fair and unbiased...

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously?

All of Washington is politically biased, one way or the other, IMO.

A POLITICAL trial in the senate is going to voted on POLITICALLY.

Perhaps you thought the trial was going to be run like a criminal one?

Impeachment is as political as any trial. Say a white nationalist hangs a black man, but he was the only black man in the country. The judge will be a white nationalist, the jury will be made up entirely of white nationalists, the defense attorney will be a white nationalist, the citizens observing the trial will be all white nationalists. The witnesses & experts to be called will all be white nationalists. There won't be a single black person to have witnessed the murder nor to witness the trial.

 

So even though it is illegal to hang someone, a prosecutor might make a political decision to not bother bringing the case to trial, knowing in advance the end result of either acquittal, regardless of the facts of the case, or riot.

 

A heinous crime was committed, but a political decision was made not to try the criminal case.

 

An impeachment hearing is also a criminal case though we don't call it that as a technicality in part because the Dept. of Justice--NOT THE CONSTITUTION--has arbitrarily (& as yet unruled upon by the Supremes) specified by policy--NOT BY LAW--that the president can not be charged with a "crime" per se. That doesn't mean the president hasn't committed any crimes. Thus, in the Mueller report, he's referred to as "individual 1", not as Trump the impeached 1.

 

Indeed, here, the president is accused by impeachment of having committed high crimes which are crimes against The Constitution itself, which is the highest law of the land. So this is quite serious and not merely "political."

 

As rto bias with regard to a trial. You seem to be misusing the word, for it refers here not to partisanship but to impartiality, to being able to put your biases aside and to look at the facts of the case, not to say, simply, that you will refuse witnesses and documents and testimony.

 

We can be biased in our personalities while at the same time being impartial (fair and just) in our analyses.

 

 

 

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, I think anyone (guilty or innocent) a fool to cooperate with someone trying to prosecute them, except inasmuch as it can benefit them directly.
 

There is nothing any of the witnesses could have said, or any taped played that would have changed the outcome or changed the minds if anyone that has been calling for his impeachment since the election. 
 

Do you not agree? 
 

If not, please tell me what someone could have said, or what could have been on the tape that would change your mind about Trump needing to be impeached. 
 

That's not the issue. The issue is: may it change the mind of anyone who did not call for impeachment?

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, candide said:

That's not the issue. The issue is: may it change the mind of anyone who did not call for impeachment?

Why would Trump want to change the minds of people that did not call for his impeachment? 
 

Do you think anyone not on the believes this is anything but partisan politics? 
 

If Trump released the recording of the call, what could have been on it that would change your mind? 
 

What could any new witness say that would make you change your mind? 
 

 

[Monomial]

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

To be clear, I think anyone (guilty or innocent) a fool to cooperate with someone trying to prosecute them, except inasmuch as it can benefit them directly.
 

There is nothing any of the witnesses could have said, or any taped played that would have changed the outcome or changed the minds if anyone that has been calling for his impeachment since the election. 
 

Do you not agree? 
 

If not, please tell me what someone could have said, or what could have been on the tape that would change your mind about Trump needing to be impeached. 
 

 

Of course there is something that could be said. If there was something on the tape that clearly showed Trump bragging about raping under aged boys and pulling babies out of incubators and throwing them in a pile of ants so they could die slowly and in agony, I can guarantee you he would be convicted.  That is what it would take though.

 

The problem is that the current transgressions are simply not viewed as serious by his supporters. Only those already predisposed to want him gone think these actions are something that merit being called "high crimes and misdemeanors". So in this case, this whole impeachment is nothing more than political theater, and as I've said before, expect this to become the norm in the future. Ipeachments from now on are going to be a common, tactical, political tool.

 

I don't blame the Democrats. The Republicans started it when they went after Clinton. Both sides are equally guilty in this farce, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump will not be found guilty in his Senate trial. Even calling it a "trial" is ridiculous. 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Why would Trump want to change the minds of people that did not call for his impeachment? 
 

Do you think anyone not on the believes this is anything but partisan politics? 
 

If Trump released the recording of the call, what could have been on it that would change your mind? 
 

What could any new witness say that would make you change your mind? 
 

 

My point is that your question is irrelevant as it does not explain why Dems want witnesses and Republicans don't want any.

 

Dems don't ask for witnesses because it would induce people who agree to impeach Trump to change their mind, right? Republicans don't want witnesses, and It's not because they hope that, by doing so, they would change the mind of the people who agree to impeach Trump, right? 

 

What explains both Republicans' and Dems' behaviour is that witnesses may change the mind of people who did not agree to impeach Trump (including people who have no clear opinion yet).

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Of course there is something that could be said. If there was something on the tape that clearly showed Trump bragging about raping under aged boys and pulling babies out of incubators and throwing them in a pile of ants so they could die slowly and in agony, I can guarantee you he would be convicted.  That is what it would take though.

 

The problem is that the current transgressions are simply not viewed as serious by his supporters. Only those already predisposed to want him gone think these actions are something that merit being called "high crimes and misdemeanors". So in this case, this whole impeachment is nothing more than political theater, and as I've said before, expect this to become the norm in the future. Ipeachments from now on are going to be a common, tactical, political tool.

 

I don't blame the Democrats. The Republicans started it when they went after Clinton. Both sides are equally guilty in this farce, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump will not be found guilty in his Senate trial. Even calling it a "trial" is ridiculous. 

 

I think we agree, but my position was that nothing could be said that would change the minds of anyone that wants him impeached. Certainly any number of things could come out that he would lose supporters over. That’s why he would be a fool to cooperate.

 

If your going to blame the Republicans because of Clinton, you might as well blame the Democrats because of Nixon. 
 

To be clear, Nixon and Clinton had both committed felonies and both impeachments had bipartisan support.

[mogandave]

33 minutes ago, candide said:

My point is that your question is irrelevant as it does not explain why Dems want witnesses and Republicans don't want any.

 

Dems don't ask for witnesses because it would induce people who agree to impeach Trump to change their mind, right?

 

No. They disallow witnesses that could hurt their case, or cause other damage. Could you imagine Jim Jordan questioning Joe Biden? How funny would that be?
 

33 minutes ago, candide said:

Republicans don't want witnesses, and It's not because they hope that, by doing so, they would change the mind of the people who agree to impeach Trump, right? 

I do not really understand the question. Republicans don’t want witnesses because they have nothing to gain. No one that wants Trump impeached is going to change their mind. They wanted him impeached long before this “bribery” thing.

 

On the other hand, things can come out that hurt their case, or make Trump or people in his administration look bad. 

 

33 minutes ago, candide said:

 

What explains both Republicans' and Dems' behaviour is that witnesses may change the mind of people who did not agree to impeach Trump (including people who have no clear opinion yet).

Still not sure what your point is. If he’s acquitted, you and the everyone else that wanted him removed for this will just start looking for something else to impeach him over. There’s probably already something lined up. Everyone else will think it just wasn’t a big deal. 
 

So again, what could be on the call tape that would change your mind? 
 

What could any of the witnesses say that would change you mind?

[candide]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

No. They disallow witnesses that could hurt their case, or cause other damage. Could you imagine Jim Jordan questioning Joe Biden? How funny would that be?
 

I do not really understand the question. Republicans don’t want witnesses because they have nothing to gain. No one that wants Trump impeached is going to change their mind. They wanted him impeached long before this “bribery” thing.

 

On the other hand, things can come out that hurt their case, or make Trump or people in his administration look bad. 

 

Still not sure what your point is. If he’s acquitted, you and the everyone else that wanted him removed for this will just start looking for something else to impeach him over. There’s probably already something lined up. Everyone else will think it just wasn’t a big deal. 
 

So again, what could be on the call tape that would change your mind? 
 

What could any of the witnesses say that would change you mind?

Why would I lose my time with an irrelevant question?