Will We See Witnesses or Not ?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (57 posts)

88
RJ Schwartzposted 4 years ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.

The bottom line is that Democrats only want witnesses if they can control who and what is said (just like in the House) - Senator Schumer plays both sides of the fence - in the public he whines and cries, but we know that no one on the left wants to see Schiff, Ciaramella, or especially Hunter on the stand. There are many who think the Right doesn't want to see Bolton on the stand.

At the end of the day, both sides are hiding their pay-for-play schemes with foreign governments that enriched family members - no one in DC has clean hands.
reply report
1. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, we won't see new witnesses or documents in this farce of a trial, RJ. The Republicans cannot let this evidence come to light or they'll be shown for the hypocrites they are.
  
  The redacted documents tell a story of the criminal activities Trump was involved in and they surely don't want to see them or hear from Bolton.
  
  Hunter Biden knows nothing about the evidence against Trump, so how is his testimony relevant to the impeachment proceedings?
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  For once I agree with you - this has been a farce, however the Senators have been shown video clips of witness testimony in the House and received transcripts of most of them (all Democrat controlled of course)
  
  But for the sake of review and a counter point, let's review the House process:
  Not one of the witnesses was cross-examined in the House by the president’s lawyers, because Democrats broke with precedent and did not allow White House counsel to participate in the fact-finding phase of the investigation.
  
  Nor did Schiff or House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) let Republicans call any new witnesses.
  
  Now they want the Senate to allow them to do what Democrats refused to allow Republicans to do in the House.
  
  Schiff has already parsed the words of others to twist them into something he thinks will be useful.
  
  This entire notion was based on a "whistleblower" which the Democrats never brought in for testimony - wonder why they wouldn't have a person who actually had so-called firsthand knowledge to come in and support their case?
  
  Also we heard about multiple high crimes almost daily from Adam Schiff, but none of them were in the Articles. Why not?
  
  And since we're discussing the Articles, doesn't it seem strange that neither one of them has any basis in real law? Could you indict someone based on them (outside the political arena)?
  
  So for all the talk of “witnesses” and “documents,” Democrats have already had plenty. Republicans and the White House have had none.
  
  The defense does not need to call witnesses — not when prosecutors fail to prove their case.
  
  It's America - where innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way the legal system works - the Democrats could have easily taken their time and methodically compiled a real case against the President in the House, but chose to rush two very weak Articles (which they then held for a month) just so Nancy Pelosi could taunt the President saying "Impeachment is forever" and pass out gold pens.
  
  There is no requirement for the Senate to bring in new witnesses or testimony, only prosecute the case that the House presented.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  RJ, you don't understand the process used in the House inquiry. Normally we'd have an AG who protects the people rather than the president. But we don't have this with Barr.
  He should have appointed a Special Prosecutor to do the job of investigating the charges against Trump.
  
  He refused to do so and the House had no other option but to do it themselves. If you know how a grand jury operates, you'd realize they are held behind closed doors with no one for the defense present. It's strictly a fact-finding session.
  
  If Barr had done his job, the Special Prosecutor would have ran the GJ the same way, behind closed doors with no witnesses for the defendant.
  
  The reason there were no witnesses for Trump in the House inquiry was because Trump refused to take part at all and stonewalled many of the witnesses and documents the House needed.
  
  It's obvious you really don't have a clue about the House proceedings. It wasn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate and Trump is still Obstructing Congress.
  
  Abuse of power covers crimes of extortion among others.
  reply report
  67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The only thing that is obvious is when you disagree with anyone you attack their intelligence. Your goal is never to debate or find the truth but to make up some story that you can use to demean your opposition. It is your signature move in all your discourse. Ralph’s understanding of anything far surpasses yours and your personal insinuations of his cluelessness.
  
  The AG appoints a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and it is obvious to Barr and anyone not suffering from TDS the Democrat accusations leading to this impeachment are nothing but them using the government to attack a political opponent, the same thing they accuse Trump of. It is a sham and the only people that are clueless are those who believe it.
  
  The house could have subpoenaed anyone they wanted to testify and they didn’t because they knew it wouldn’t help them.
  
  Trey Gowdy Makes some obvious salient points here which you won’t listen to but immediately dis it as fake Fox News when in reality it is nothing but the educated and experienced opinion of a brilliant lawyer and former congressman that has nothing to do with any of your made up “Fox News agenda” accusations.
  
  https://youtu.be/EPlO9WqByq0
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I've asked you numerous times to explain the proper way YOU think the inquiry should be conducted, but for some odd reason you haven't took me up on it, but continue to spew nonsense anyway. Now's your chance to prove me wrong, Turtle.
  reply report
  67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Another diversion Randy? I have no idea what you are talking about except that you always ask questions to divert comments from the topic at hand which most people have learned that is your motis operandi when whatever is being discussed has you over a barrel. So it just gets ignored and then you whine about it forever instead of dealing with your own problem understanding reason.
  
  You just did it again.
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Your notion of what "should" have happened is a far cry from what "is" happening. The Attorney General has no role in impeachment, so I fail to see why you keep bringing him up.
  
  The House didn't even follow their own rules (which they rewrote to be highly exclusionary anyway) which should have permitted the minority Party to have a day of witnesses.
  
  It's not up to us to decide HOW this should have happened - that's why we have laws that are built around facts, not hearsay and emotions.
  
  You can insult me as many times as you feel it helps you sleep at night - I really don't care. My skin is thick and the facts are supporting my arguments, so please, insult, divert, and do anything you wish to make you and your followers happy.
  
  But, just for fun - how about you list your credentials to the community on Political Science, Law, Constitutional Law, and anything else related to government, just for fun.....
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, no insults. You really are ignorant as to how the House operated, Ralph. They did nothing underhanded despite what you hear on Fox News.
  
  If the AG had appointed a Special prosecutor--as in every other Impeach trial--he would held the GJ sessions behind closed doors just as the House did.
  
  Your claim the AG has no part in the proceedings again come from your ignorance of the process. It isn't my fault you can't understand the process, Ralph.
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Calling a person ignorant is an insult - maybe you think otherwise, but most people generally agree with me. Even though I'm growing weary of you dodging the questions, let's try it one more time:
  
  Please show me the stature, law or Congressional Rule that identifies the AG's role in an impeachment - not what you think or repeating what past impeachment trials have been like, but a real factual citation of US Constitutional Law that shows the role of an AG in impeachment.
  
  and please, not another "if this or if that" scenario.....it just shows how little you actually know about the subject, but are trying to claim the high ground on. The AG may be called on if necessary for investigations, but nowhere is his role defined by law, nor is he officially part of the process.
  
  Impeachment is a political process, while AG Barr and the DOJ focus on real crimes, not made up ones like the Democrat Congress submitted in the Articles.
  
  You talk a good game but we can see you don't have the legal expertise to back up your opinion(s).
  
  Last chance - present the House Rule or US Law which shows the Attorney General's role in an impeachment trial in the Senate
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, Ralph. I'm ignorant of rocket science and brain surgery, among other subjects. But go ahead claim you know everything about everything if it makes you feel better.
  
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 024155002/
  
  https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/a … gulations/
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not the one making claims to know everything Randy - stop putting words in my mouth that I've not spoken. I see your offering more opinions rather than facts again. And it was a nice touch posting a link from 1999 - irrelevant, but I found it funny - the last time I checked the Brookings Institute isn't a lawmaking body
  
  1. Still waiting for your credential to discuss Political Science - or didn't they teach that at the Agricultural College you attended? What's your degree in again?
  2. Still waiting for you to share the actual laws on the Role of the Attorney General in an impeachment
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Did you not claim the AG has no role in an Impeachment inquiry? I furnished links proving he does if he's not acting in the favor of the WH.
  
  Barr would not have appointed a SP no matter if Trump murdered an American citizen in broad daylight.
  
  Are you saying you have a Political Science, degree. Ralph? You don't even know who appoints a SP!
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No Randy, I have a BA in Quantitative Economics, a BA in American History and an MBA in Business/Marketing - I showed my cards - how about yours?
  
  Cite something from the Constitution that tells the official role of the AG - here's a real link to the document - https://usconstitution.net/const.pdf
  
  I see the House's role, the Senate's Role, the Chief Justice has a role, but nowhere does it state what the role of the Attorney General is.
  
  The AG has NO official role unless called upon - like in this case when the IG tried to get the DOJ involved based on the second-hand whistleblower complaint after the law was conveniently changed - the AG rejected it as being hearsay.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Okay Ralph, You said earlier the AG had no part in the impeachment proceedings. Now you're saying "unless called upon."
  
  Which is it? Who appointed Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment? Or the SP in the Nixon inquiry?
  reply report
  88
  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Dodging again Randy? "read closely - OFFICIAL ROLE AS LISTED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION"
  
  I'm still waiting for your list of degrees.....
  Maybe your IQ would suffice? Doubtful you ever had an IQ test though.
  We can keep this up until the President's next term if you want.
  report
  67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, didn’t you know his “badge of honor” is being a pot smuggler!
  
  His own words not mine!
  report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, lay off pot smugglers. Some of my best friends are pot smugglers.
  
  GA
  report
  67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, I’m not picking on them, God forbid! I said apparently to be one is a badge of honor! How is that picking on them?
  report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Can I play? I don't have any degrees, but I am a nice guy that likes sports.
  
  GA
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Seems like another pissing contest is in order, GA. Should I enter or not?
  report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Nah, let's just have a drink and watch.
  
  GA
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wow Gus, I usually wait until after 5 PM for my first adult beverage. However, like Jimmy Buffet sang, It's 5 o'clock somewhere.
  report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "The redacted documents tell a story of the criminal activities Trump was involved in..."
  
  How do you know that? Your crystal ball again?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Because some have been redacted. DOH!
  reply report
2. 89
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I would love to see both John Bolton and Hunter Biden testify. And Joe Biden. And Mike Mulvaney.
  
  Man, would that be fun.
  
  Don't the American people deserve the truth?
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It should be no surprise that I think the Joe and Hunter Biden accusations are a bunch of political hooey, and I just don't see any possible relevance their testimony could offer. By that I mean that even if there was some 'there there', (which I doubt), I sure don't think they will testify to it—even under oath.
  
  So I don't understand why you would want to hear them testify.
  
  GA
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and anyone else that Rudy can find that even might show some wrongdoing in the Ukraine that might be connected to the Bidens. An investigation, in other words, towards any possibility at all of "abuse of power". If even a trace of a hint were found, even a third hand rumor, it would throw that phone conversation into a different light.
  
  A political light, used in any future elections for the next few years anyway - anyone convinced of Trump's guilt will not change their mind.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I was willing to have Hunter testify if it was the only way to get Bolton and Mulvaney to.
  
  What was Hunter going to say other than, "They offered me a lot of money, so I took the job. Dad had no part of getting me the job, so what's the big deal?"
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You're saying he would lie rather than get his Dad into deep trouble?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You're speaking as if you know he'd lie about something. What would the lie be? Do you know for sure? How did Ivanka get her job? You don't think because her dad was POTUS? Or Jerrod for that matter. You never said what his qualifications were.
  
  You seem to know what Hunter's lack of experience was, so you should know what Sissy and Jerrod's qualifications are. Do tell!
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I thought I was asking you a question, not making a statement about Biden. But, as usual, your answer was to take off on an unrelated tangent.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You made the statement Hunter would lie for his father, Dan. How is my first sentence unrelated to what you asked?
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Odd - I was pretty sure that YOU made that statement, not I. All I did was ask you if you really thought he would do that.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You asked me if Hunter would lie to protect his father. I asked you what the lie would be. As I said, you seemed to suggest he would.
  reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago
I have two degrees, Ralph. From two different schools, and like you, neither is in political science. I do have a wife who;s retired judge though. I depend on her for legal advice.

Apparently you missed my last question.
reply report
1. 67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You forgot to mention you depend on your it son for computer advice! I mean two relatives who have degrees has to be great credentials for you!
  
  Two different schools? Well one has to be high school and the other a trade school, right? If not, gee why don’t you brag about what kind of degree? You’re quick to brag about your pot smuggling, even wrote an article about it. Why aren’t you that proud of your degrees? I suppose they aren’t as good as a “badge of honor?”
  reply report
2. 88
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Oh hell. That explains a lot. You depend on your wife to tell you what to think. ;-) ROTFLMAO
  
  (quick, close that door before I get carried away)
  
  ps. my wife tells me what to think too, but I only pretend to listen to her
  
  GA
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Uh huh. That's what I say, too...when she's out of hearing range.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I sold all of my encyclopedias because she already knows everything, Gus.
  reply report
95
Readmikenowposted 4 years ago
Looks like its all over for the Democrats hoax impeachment. It's about time. Does make you wonder what the Democrats will make up now.

"Swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out against witnesses, paving way for imminent Trump acquittal"

"Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced late Thursday night that he would not support additional witnesses in President Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan" Senate impeachment trial, seemingly ending Democrats' hopes of hearing testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and paving the way for the president's imminent acquittal as soon as Friday night."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate … hment-vote
reply report
1. 67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Russian collusion, impeachment, I wonder what sham the Democrats will come up with after impeachment is DOA!
  
  reply report
  95
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure we know what the Democrats are doing wrong so they always lose to President Donald Trump. I just hope THEY never figure it out.
  reply report
  67
  tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, they figured out what they are doing won’t work. They are just doing what they have always done best, lie, misrepresent, foment division and hatred because there is nothing they can do that will work and they know it! Just like with Kavanaugh!
  Remember a leopard cannot change it’s spots.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "lie, misrepresent,foment division and hatred." Sounds just like your role model, turtle.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  We've already figured out the Republicans are terrified of him. We simply need to vote them and their corrupt leader out of office.
  reply report
2. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Alexander said he didn't need to see more witnesses because the House has proven their case. He said he would vote for impeachment though. Guilty, but not enough to remove him from office. Hmmmm.
  reply report
  95
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I didn't see that one. Where did Alexander say such a thing?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  There was an interview this morning with Alan D. where they placed Alexander's words to Alan, Mike. It was MSNBC where it took place. I'm sure you can find a clip for it.
  reply report
  95
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I can't bring myself to watch MSNBC. I feel about them as you do about Fox news. I looked and can't find it, so, I'll take your word for it.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I understand, Mike. Even though I detest Fox, I still make myself watch it to see all sides of the particular issue. The interview was only a half hour ago so it may not be listed yet.
  reply report
  89
  IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sen. Lamar Alexander just spoke to a small group of reporters about his decision to vote against witnesses and documents.
  
  "I concluded after nine long days, and hearing 200 video clips of witnesses from the House, I didn't need any more evidence, because I thought it was proof the President did what he was charged with doing, but it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I didn't need any more evidence to make my decision," said.
  reply report
95
Readmikenowposted 4 years ago
This all but seals the deal. 60 Senators are required to vote to remove a presidet from office. So, that is highly unlikely right now.

"Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal"

"Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski came out Friday against calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, all but assuring the Senate will move to wrap up proceedings with a likely acquittal in a matter of days, if not hours."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkow … -acquittal
reply report
1. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, when the NYT story came out this morning it apparently pushed her over the edge. She dare not vote for witnesses now and called it partisan. What?
  
  I hope her constituents give her as much consideration as she did her duty.
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  From Murkowski: ""Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed."
  
  There is zero doubt that she is right. Outside of political gains, perhaps even into the election, what would be gained? Certainly Bolton isn't going to change a single partisan vote!
  
  Her reasoning may be nothing but rationalization, but if so it was very well done and carries a lot of truth.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  When you say "Bolton isn't going to change a single partisan vote," which party were you referring to?
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Change a single partisan vote". Either party.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Will We See Witnesses or Not ?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Will We See Witnesses or Not ?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies