U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The problem with that is trumps doj is currently arguing thebexact opposite in court on exactly that issue.

How so?

Edited January 23, 2020 by mogandave
WW

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify. 

Nothing wrong if it’s Trump. Just his usual lying, stonewalling, unethical and immoral behavior. Some like those traits though. 

[neeray]

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What is it you are trying to say? 

I ask that of you. What is it you were trying to say in this sentence? "In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify." 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, neeray said:

I ask that of you. What is it you were trying to say in this sentence? "In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify." 

Seems clear enough to me.

[Skeptic7]

On 1/22/2020 at 9:14 AM, BobBKK said:

What a Circus!  I have never seen someone as disingenuous as Schiff

Wow! You've never seen Donald Trump??? Or Devin Nunes or Mitch McConnell et al??? Lucky you!!! 

[neeray]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems clear enough to me.

The sentence makes no sense at all. I know that Trump supporters get pretty excited. I think maybe a word is missing in all the excitement. Not sure. Sentence is too incoherent.

[mogandave]

25 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Nothing wrong if it’s Trump. Just his usual lying, stonewalling, unethical and immoral behavior. Some like those traits though. 

Really? So anyone that decides doing what they want is not in their best interest is a liar?

 

I assume this does not include people on the left.

 

 

[BobBKK]

14 hours ago, candide said:

It was an investigation, not a trial so there was due process. It is not the norm that suspects interview witnesses during investigations.

There was no secret, Republican members of the three committees were also presents and had equal time to ask questions.

All witnesses would could have witnessed something have been accepted, except for the whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous. No written questions has been sent by the Republicans. And oh the hypocrisy! The only witnesses they called were:

- people who could not have witnessed anything, such as Biden

- the whistleblower, who had the right to remain anonymous

- a few true witnesses, but they had already been called before by the Dems, so there was no risk that they could bring any new information.

Etc...

what a load of... ****!  talk about hypocrisy this farce is turning Dem sympathisers (like me) into GOP ones!  

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Really? So anyone that decides doing what they want is not in their best interest is a liar?

 

I assume this does not include people on the left.

 

 

Doing this repeatedly is uniquely Trump. 

[Ricohoc]

3 hours ago, Tulak said:

Wouldn't it make sense to get the evidence BEFORE accusing anybody?

Besides, Dem. repeated many times that they have all the evidence - so what else is needed?

From the distance it looks like a Kangaroo Court to me. Gives me the impression that decision to Impeach was made the day after the president was elected.

Absolutely correct.

 

From the beginning, this has been an exercise to investigate the man to find a crime; and Democrats have even tried to criminalize legal behavior in order to GET TRUMP.

 

Example of criminalizing legal behavior?  Beginning in 2017, Democrats now believe that mounting a defense and executive privilege is now obstruction.  Today, Democrats believe that anyone accused has to prove their innocence; and everyone should always believe witnesses and their beliefs, suppositions and presumptions over factual occurrences that indicate otherwise.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Facts are that your wrong. Americans want witness and documentation by a  68% margin and 48% Republicans do as well.

Sorry you did not understand my sarcasm. I want witnesses as much as anybody.

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Sorry you did not understand my sarcasm. I want witnesses as much as anybody.

Are you not already convinced he’s guilty? 
 

Did the witnesses and evidence presented by the House not prove overwhelming that he was guilty? 
 

If not, why was he impeached? 
 

If so, additional witnesses should not be needed. 

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Are you not already convinced he’s guilty? 
 

Did the witnesses and evidence presented by the House not prove overwhelming that he was guilty? 
 

If not, why was he impeached? 
 

If so, additional witnesses should not be needed. 

You could not possibly be more incorrect, from a legal point of view. Most of my attorney friends, even the conservative ones, insist that witnesses are necessary, in order to consider this a legitimate proceeding, and not a sham trial.

 

Yes, I believe the congress demonstrated his guilt, but even more so, Trump demonstrated his guilt through his actions, and his obstruction. He is a career criminal.

 

The Constitution is clear: The Senate has “the sole Power to try”—not review—“all Impeachments.” Unlike an appeals court, the Senate’s powers are not limited to review and remand; instead, it alone has the power to determine whether an impeached president should be punished by removal from office and disqualification from “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” These are powers reserved for trial, not appellate, courts.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-impeachment-trial-call-witnesses-or-concede-facts

[mogandave]

18 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

You could not possibly be more incorrect, from a legal point of view. Most of my attorney friends, even the conservative ones, insist that witnesses are necessary, in order to consider this a legitimate proceeding, and not a sham trial.

 

Yes, I believe the congress demonstrated his guilt, but even more so, Trump demonstrated his guilt through his actions, and his obstruction. He is a career criminal.

 

The Constitution is clear: The Senate has “the sole Power to try”—not review—“all Impeachments.” Unlike an appeals court, the Senate’s powers are not limited to review and remand; instead, it alone has the power to determine whether an impeached president should be punished by removal from office and disqualification from “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” These are powers reserved for trial, not appellate, courts.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-impeachment-trial-call-witnesses-or-concede-facts

So because “most” of your attorney friends say something that proves it? What do your attorney friend that not agree say? 

 

Most of my attorney friends agree that the way the House handled the hearings made it a sham. 

 

I never said witnesses weren’t needed, I said additional witnesses should not be needed If the House had done their job.

 

Why did the House not take the time to get the documents and witnesses they wanted? 

[Baerboxer]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:17 AM, Tug said:

Not in the least surprised they will fight tooth and nail to hide the facts truth and facts are the enemy of trump we must rember come 2020 and hold the republicans accountable 

 

Whereas the Democrats are all only interested in the truth and justice - yeah right. Like the way the want to keep the Bidens from scrutiny. Guess Joe's told them if he or his lad go down, so will plenty of others!

[Baerboxer]

49 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So because “most” of your attorney friends say something that proves it? What do your attorney friend that not agree say? 

 

Most of my attorney friends agree that the way the House handled the hearings made it a sham. 

 

I never said witnesses weren’t needed, I said additional witnesses should not be needed If the House had done their job.

 

Why did the House not take the time to get the documents and witnesses they wanted? 

 

The House was in "turn every stone over and hope we can find something, anything, to clutch onto" mode.

 

They rushed because they are concerned about the 2020 election. Their worst nightmare must be Trump being re-elected, the GOP regaining control of the House and Senate and then the spotlights being turned on them!

[Chiphigh]

19 hours ago, Tug said:

Come on 2020 the vast majority want a real trial looks like that’s not gonna happen it will be reflected in 2020 enough of the fraud

Can you quantify this "vast" majority and how much is in a vast. 

 

If you are including a poll, include the precise wording of the poll question and the details of the people asked and where the people who were asked were from. 

 

Thank you

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

Absolutely correct.

 

From the beginning, this has been an exercise to investigate the man to find a crime; and Democrats have even tried to criminalize legal behavior in order to GET TRUMP.

 

Example of criminalizing legal behavior?  Beginning in 2017, Democrats now believe that mounting a defense and executive privilege is now obstruction.  Today, Democrats believe that anyone accused has to prove their innocence; and everyone should always believe witnesses and their beliefs, suppositions and presumptions over factual occurrences that indicate otherwise.

 

Regardless of what people may think of Trump, anyone with half a brain can see that you're spot on. The Democrats were desperate to find something, anything. The Russian hysteria, the demand for tax returns, whistleblower and people changing statements, with perhaps some encouragement, etc etc.

 

They most certainly have investigated the man, determined to find crimes or bend facts to fit crimes. And all along, they've screamed that the POTUS must prove himself innocent of their accusations.

 

That ought to be more worrying to the American people than anything else. The American left liberals are showing that now, like other left liberal political groups around the world, they will do anything to get and keep power. 

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Regardless of what people may think of Trump, anyone with half a brain can see that you're spot on. The Democrats were desperate to find something, anything. The Russian hysteria, the demand for tax returns, whistleblower and people changing statements, with perhaps some encouragement, etc etc.

 

They most certainly have investigated the man, determined to find crimes or bend facts to fit crimes. And all along, they've screamed that the POTUS must prove himself innocent of their accusations.

 

That ought to be more worrying to the American people than anything else. The American left liberals are showing that now, like other left liberal political groups around the world, they will do anything to get and keep power. 

Staying through to form defending those who who show scant regards for the rule of law from junta in Thailand to Trumpism. 

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

Most everyone speaks with both sides of their mouth.

 

Did you mean to say he speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

 

In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify. 
 

Somehow you missed the point. Not my job to help out with COMMON sense.

[earlinclaifornia]

20 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Can you quantify this "vast" majority and how much is in a vast. 

 

If you are including a poll, include the precise wording of the poll question and the details of the people asked and where the people who were asked were from. 

 

Thank you

Yesteday poll results. See if you can locate Google!

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

So because “most” of your attorney friends say something that proves it? What do your attorney friend that not agree say? 

 

Most of my attorney friends agree that the way the House handled the hearings made it a sham. 

 

I never said witnesses weren’t needed, I said additional witnesses should not be needed If the House had done their job.

 

Why did the House not take the time to get the documents and witnesses they wanted? 

Do you not understand the legnth of going thru the court system. trump has a lifetime history of dragging out in the court of law then folding.

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Somehow you missed the point. Not my job to help out with COMMON sense.

That’s what I thought, thanks.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

How so?

This so.

 

Doj arguing the court should not interfere in a political matter.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

[earlinclaifornia]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Sorry you did not understand my sarcasm. I want witnesses as much as anybody.

My appogy I do have the occasional brain fart.

Edited January 23, 2020 by earlinclaifornia
spelling

[mogandave]

Just now, earlinclaifornia said:

Do you not understand the legnth of going thru the court system. trump has a lifetime history of dragging out in the court of law then folding.

Do you not understand the President does not have to cooperate without the House going through the court? 

 

Clinton didn’t have to, Bush didn’t have yo, Obama didn’t have and Trump doesn’t have to. 
 

That you believe differently means nothing.
 

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

This so.

 

Doj arguing the court should not interfere in a political matter.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

And how were they previously arguing the court should interfere with a political matter? 

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And how were they previously arguing the court should interfere with a political matter? 

Because his legal team at impeachment is arguing against witnesses because congress didnt go thru the courts.

 

The doj is arguing the opposite in the court.

 

Diammetrically opposing arguments. So which one is it?

 

Did u even read the link?

[Mavideol]

18 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Can you please provide factual reference to the claim that you have made? If not, this would be a good time to return to reality. 

feel free to do your home work and (for a start) add to that the Muller report that didn't exonerate him....

[mogandave]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Because his legal team at impeachment is arguing against witnesses because congress didnt go thru the courts.

 

The doj is arguing the opposite in the court.

 

Diammetrically opposing arguments. So which one is it?

 

Did u even read the link?

So telling the dems they have to go through the court, while they fight them in court is somehow diametrically opposing arguments? 
 

In what world? 
 

Did you read it? I think not.