Schumer requests four witnesses, including Mulvaney and Bolton, in letter to McConnell about Senate impeachment trial

y2h said:
He enumerated two reasons for withholding the aid, neither of which was a quid pro quo dealing with the Bidens.
Click to expand...
Actually no...Mulvaney said in plain English that part of the reason to hold the aid was the investigations. The reporter in framing his follow up question said what was described is a quid pro quo and Mulvaney said get over it, it happens all the time. He went on to say that personal politics is part of policy in Trump world. Now...you can say that you don’t care. You can say that Mulvaney lied or misspoke. You can‘t say he did not state those things. That would be a lie both to Yappi land and to yourself.
 
arizonawildcat said:
Shouldn't the Republican be able to call their own witnesses, including the whisleblower. I thought that under American law the accused has the right to confront his accuser face to face in court.
Click to expand...

They can, but the House doesn't really have a case for the Senate to consider. There was no crime (they didn't even bother to reference the criminal code that was allegedly violated). There was no Constitutional violation (again they didn't even link the allegations to a section or clause of the Constitution to establish the basis for their action. There was no a single witness that testified in the open that Trump did anything illegal or even what Schiff accused him of, they testified of rumors and innuendo and hearsay to fit a path that the Democrats desired. Under cross-examination even the "star witnesses" had to acknowledge that they had no direct knowledge and the knowledge that they did have was exculpatory to the narrative the Democrats were spinning. The performance was so bad that the judiciary called no witnesses or even questioned the existing ones to try to overcome the mess that was the result of the Schiff show.:poop: It's time to move on and watch the socialists get spanked by the President in 2020.
 
No confirmation on whether Cocaine Mitch actually used the phrase "eat a bag of ," in his response to Chuckles, but the result was the same.
 
ProV1 said:
Because the Senate is the effective trial. If the facts were fully established, there would be no need for a trial.
Click to expand...
The fact finding part of impeachment (i.e. the investigation) takes place in the House. The primary purpose of the Senate trial is to determine whether the facts established by the House warrant removal from office.
 
Do you guys understand the process?

The House is similar to a Grand Jury ... it is not a trial, just to see if there is enough evidence to bring charges

The Senate is suppose to be the trial ... where both sides make their argument for guilty or not guilty ... very rarely does the prosecutors give all the evidence at the grad jury stage.

Also we keep bringing up hearsay .... you are partly correct hearsay is not allowed in court .... except for the twenty some exception to the hearsay rule

Also if this was a true criminal trial the prosecutors would have subpoena power to call witness ... and they couldn't decline
 
Last edited:
McConnell did an excellent job to lay out where Schumer was wrong and what his plans are. The Senate is not going to spend weeks or even days trying to prove the case that the House failed to do.
 
joesports said:
Do you guys understand the process?

The House is similar to a Grand Jury ... it is not a trial, just to see if there is enough evidence to bring charges

The Senate is suppose to be the trial ... where both sides make their argument for guilty or not guilty ... very rarely does the prosecutors give all the evidence at the grad jury stage.
Click to expand...
You are messing up the Faux narrative. Witnesses at a trial that is partisan craziness.
 
joesports said:
Do you guys understand the process?

The House is similar to a Grand Jury ... it is not a trial, just to see if there is enough evidence to bring charges

The Senate is suppose to be the trial ... where both sides make their argument for guilty or not guilty ... very rarely does the prosecutors give all the evidence at the grad jury stage.
Click to expand...
But in this case they have. There is nothing more to give. Just look at the lame articles of impeachment.
 
the_big_toe said:
The fact finding part of impeachment (i.e. the investigation) takes place in the House. The primary purpose of the Senate trial is to determine whether the facts established by the House warrant removal from office.
Click to expand...


They don't even warrant a look, much less a vote.

End it all in 3 minutes.
 
joesports said:
Do you guys understand the process?

The House is similar to a Grand Jury ... it is not a trial, just to see if there is enough evidence to bring charges

The Senate is suppose to be the trial ... where both sides make their argument for guilty or not guilty ... very rarely does the prosecutors give all the evidence at the grad jury stage.
Click to expand...
That is the process for a criminal trial. But even there, the case developed by the prosecutor should be fairly complete.

Considering the old saying that “a good prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich”, and considering how disruptive impeachment is to the country, I would hope that the House would set a higher standard for impeachment than that. Otherwise virtually every POTUS going forward will be subject to impeachment.

Further, the Constitution only gives the Senate the power to try impeachment’s, not conduct their own separate investigations of impeachment.
 
Last edited:
the_big_toe said:
That is the process for a criminal trial. But even there, the case developed by the prosecutor should be fairly complete.

Considering the old saying that “a good prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich”, and considering how disruptive impeachment is to the country, I would hope that the House would set a higher standard for impeachment than that. Otherwise virtually every POTUS going forward will be subject to impeachment.
Click to expand...
Yea, I would agree that impeachment should be a higher bar .... as I have said before .... I think what Trump did is wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent .... much like Obama did with the executive orders ... but does not reach the level of impeachment for me ... personally I wish both side would come together and tell the President it was wrong and he is not allowed to do it again ... sorta of like a censorship
 
joesports said:
Yea, I would agree that impeachment should be a higher bar .... as I have said before .... I think what Trump did is wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent .... much like Obama did with the executive orders ... but does not reach the level of impeachment for me ... personally I wish both side would come together and tell the President it was wrong and he is not allowed to do it again ... sorta of like a censorship
Click to expand...
Censure would have been both appropriate and smart. The Democrats would probably have even gotten several Republicans to support it.
 
the_big_toe said:
The fact finding part of impeachment (i.e. the investigation) takes place in the House. The primary purpose of the Senate trial is to determine whether the facts established by the House warrant removal from office.
Click to expand...
No...The House in essence functions like a grand jury. They handle the indictment part. In fact, up until this impeachment The House was never involved in fact finding. That was the job of a special council.
 
ProV1 said:
No...The House in essence functions like a grand jury. They handle the indictment part. In fact, up until this impeachment The House was never involved in fact finding. That was the job of a special council.
Click to expand...
I’m starting to think that you’re not worth responding to. Where in the Constitution does it refer to “special counsel”?
 
Chuck Schumer can go ______ himself, along with the leaker/liar Schiff, and of course Nadler and Pelosi. There has never been a larger collection of buffoons in congress every, and that is saying something.
 
joesports said:
Yea, I would agree that impeachment should be a higher bar .... as I have said before .... I think what Trump did is wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent .... much like Obama did with the executive orders ... but does not reach the level of impeachment for me ... personally I wish both side would come together and tell the President it was wrong and he is not allowed to do it again ... sorta of like a censorship
Click to expand...

I might be more sympathetic to this POV if someone could provide me with a single piece of evidence that Trump did anything wrong?

He was well within his authority to question the Ukrainian leadership about their efforts to interfere in our 2016 election and the degree to which corruption by American officials contributed to that. The fact that Biden and his son were potentially at the center of the corruption is the reason they came up in the conversation. Is the POTUS supposed to ignore the Bidens actions here because Uncle Joe might be his opponent in the 2020 election?

So before we call for censure, which is a serious thing in its own right, how about someone, anyone, show us evidence that Trump engaged in quid pro quo or any other disreputable behavior here? The only REAL evidence I've seen is Joe Biden ON VIDEO bragging about how he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to hold up $1,000,000,000 in aid during the Obama administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h
ProV1 said:
No...The House in essence functions like a grand jury. They handle the indictment part. In fact, up until this impeachment The House was never involved in fact finding. That was the job of a special council.
Click to expand...

The House acts as the prosecutor, judge and jury. The Senate really acts in the sentencing hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top