The search for the truth. Where was it in the Senate Trial?

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

   As the meaning of a trial is a "search for the truth," do you consider the Republican Senators voting to deny new witnesses and documents as Searching for the truth?
   
   If so, then why?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No takers? No excuses for the Senators? No surprise!

      replyreport
      1. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Well, I'm certainly not going to try to cover their lousy butts. But you do need an answer so here I am. I had to leave the living room today while the WH lawyers were spouting their ignorance and dishonesty. What a sham of our Constitution! These people are supposed to be lawyers and were quoting Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers, but I have the feeling that the poor man is rolling over in his grave. But "who cares? We're the greatest! Everybody owes us. They should look up to us!" This is so embarrassing. I was thinking about going on a trip to Europe, but I think I need to learn an Aussie accent or something before I go.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            No problem, Miz. There's no real excuse for this sham trial. But we'll hear plenty when Bolton speaks and the documents are finally released through the FIA.
            
            I intend to give them hell for allowing OJ Trump to escape justice.

            replyreport
         2. 97

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Ahhh.  I've been out all day.  Wasn't today when each Senator have a chance to explain why they will vote the way they do?
            
            Were there lots and lots (as in about 100) pretty political speeches?  As opposed to reasoned legal opinions?
            That's all I expected to hear anyway.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Nope, simply Trump's defense still claiming the Ukraine didn't know about the extortion scheme until after the WB appeared.
               
               In other words, more lies.

               replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "The search for the truth. Where was it in the Senate Trial?"
      
      We will never know, will we... Due to the House just not doing their job, not taking their time, using their power to find any and all the truth they felt would prove their case. So, whee was it in the Senate Trail? The Senate relied on the truth that is represented in the Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, for the very first time in History. No witnesses and documents in the Senate trial. We've been through this already Shar, and you still don't get it.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes for the first time in history the Senate did not choose to call new witnesses. It is their prerogative. AND THE HOUSE KNEW THIS.
            
            Yes, we have been through it, and it's not me that does not get it. Once again --- the House has the responsibility to do the investigation and can call all the witnesses they want to in their phase of impeachment. The articles then end up in front of the Senate. They also can call witnesses if they feel they need to. And yes three witnesse were subpoenaed in the Clinton trial by the Senate. That was their option as it was in Trump's impeachment. They did not feel they wanted any further witnesses. It's that simple. The House took that chance, they should have taken time to get the witnesses they wanted in their phase, and don't tell me they did not know that the Senate would shoot down their request for witnesses. In my opinion (once again) this was a cheap political grift. You should be accustom to this kind of BS with the Dems. Come on...
            
            I have not argued the facts that witnesses were not present in other impeachments. I have argued that it's up to the House to gather them and have them all ready before the trial. Once it's in the trial phase the Senate will only call new witnesses as they see fit. That's just the protocol.  The House has no right to call witnesses at the trial phase, they can ask, but the Senate has the last word, and always has in the trial phase when it comes to impeaching a president.
            
            I can be no more clear on the subject. I  posted a resource the other day in regards to these rules.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               So let me get this straight, Shar. Since the House couldn't get the evidence and witness they sought in time, the Senate had no reason to search for the truth? 
               
               You know as well as I, they were terrified of finding the truth as the Senate trial is supposed to do. Romney is the only honest member of the Republican Senate. Shame on the others as they'll not fare well in the history books.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "So let me get this straight, Shar. Since the House couldn't get the evidence and witness they sought in time, the Senate had no reason to search for the truth?"
                  
                  Was there a timeline on the Houses investigation? No
                  
                  I did not express or comment on what I felt is the truth, now did I?  What I expressed was it is up to the Senate to call witnesse actually new or witnesses that testified in the House phase. You are reading into my statement or taking it out of context.
                  
                  I have no way of knowing why the Senate did not feel they needed to hear more witnesses. I would guess they only looked at what the house offered as evidence, and that was all they intended to deal with. As a rule, the prosecution is prepared and not still looking for new crimes as well as evidence. 
                  
                  It is clear we have a different thought process on the impeachment. I just felt the case was weak, and that's not to say the allegations are true or false. The case was weak, not prepared well. I have tried to point out their case could have been strong if they took the time to get their witnesses.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     So give me what you think would be the time required to get the evidence and witnesses they needed in the House, Shar?
                     
                     Just a simple guess will do at this point, counting all of the stages of court cases and appeals. Keep in mind they've been trying to get McGahn to testify since last April.
                     
                     Come on, give it your best educated guess!

                     replyreport
                     1. 97

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Basing the answer on the quality of the evidence and witnesses the House did supply, something in the neighborhood of 10,000 years (searching for a time frame beyond the United States of America).

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes indeed Dan, that sounds about right to get the evidence Mitch and Co. were afraid of. We'll find out soon enough though. Bolton will blow the whistle on your hero's drug deal.
                           
                           But you don't care what a criminal he is, or you'd want to hear the truth.

                           replyreport
                     2. 79

                        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        There is no time limit on the House investigation. Clintons took two years. I would think if the House was willing to pursue impeachment they knew it certainly would not be easy fighting someone like Trump. They look ridiculous, more so each day. One would think they would step off and lick their wounds and just perhaps move on to helping their failing party.
                        
                        I am over this conversation, we just have no chance of reconciling our opinions on how this impeachment should have been handled. I give up...
                        
                        But, you do realize they had no chance of winning from the get-go, due to the Senate majority, especially without new witnesses? You do realize they also knew they were not going to get those new witnesses from the Senate majority?  Why do you think they even tried? Do you think it was a political ploy?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Are you refusing to give me a timeline, Shar? You're so sure the House didn't wait long enough, give us a guess as to how long getting the evidence would take.
                           
                           You cannot escape this Shar. Give us your best estimate, if you dare!

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Ok, I will give you an example of the one Witness that the House did subpoena.  Charles Kupperman,(CK) President Donald Trump's former deputy national security adviser. I only know about him because I picked it up in the trial phase of the impeachment. CK was subpoenaed in Oct 2019, he defied a congressional subpoena and went to court  Oct 28th
                              
                              Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking a judge to rule whether he had to comply with the House subpoena, pointing to the White House's stance that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. On November 7, 2019, the House withdrew the subpoena.
                              The case was scheduled to be heard on Dec 30th the case was heard due to CK's lawyer ask it to be heard. The case was heard on Dec 30th, 2019, and then dismissed the case and judged is moot due to the House withdrawing their subpoena.
                              
                              So, not sure why the House dropped the subpoena. However, as you see the court was pretty quick to hear the case. No way we will ever know if the House would have won, but they certainly might have. This was one example that the defense gave to actually prove the House did not do their due diligence to acquire witnesses. They just may have gotten CK in only two months' time.
                              
                              There is no way to guess how long it would take to acquire witnesses if they enter the courts. Let me remind you the witnesses they wanted to hear from could have been at least subpoenaed, there is no way to know if one or all would have gone to court or if the president at that point would have used his privilege. It certainly would have been worth doing the right thing, and you know what they could then honestly say they were obstructed. They just were not obstructed in any respect. Is a tweet a court order, is a statement while headed to a helicopter a court order? That's all the obstruction that occurred.   
                              
                              You just aren't getting it, Randy.  If the House followed the procedures they would not have come up short, they would not have had to stand before the Cheif Justice and spin a story that had nothing but hearsay, second-hand information. They would have not looked like fools for not presenting factual evidence. If they were obstructed by the President via executive privilege or held up in the courts. This could be factual obstruction.
                              
                              So, If you want my best estimate a simple option. It would not have taken a month or two. You know why because Trump would have used his executive privilege they all would have got immunity. And you know what, that would have told me they did their best. It would have been a brand new ball game. If Trump did not bud in, it would take most likely take a very long time.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 "If Trump did not bud in, it would take most likely take a very long time."
                                 
                                 What a shitty answer, Shar! Give me an estimate of the time it would take to get what the House wanted from the cretin.

                                 replyreport
      2. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         If the House had done what YOU call their job, Sharlee, we would be sitting here until after the election waiting for the courts to act. Oh well, that might have been a good thing with the voters getting tired of waiting for the Trumpers to stop stalling and vote the bum out!

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I can see your point. Although I can only add my two cents and say I would have respected the House for taking the time. It certainly would have stopped me in my tracks, and made me think about their commitment to proving their allegations. As of now, it all looked like a political ploy. In the end, the election will be telling.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Shar seems to think the House could get what they wanted in a very short time. She doesn't understand the court procedures they'd have to go through, not mention all of the appeals everytime they got a favorable ruling.
            
            She thinks they can simply ask for what they want with Trump blocking ever avenue to the truth. The House proved him guilty, the Senate covered for Trump.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Especially with the Trump a$$kisser Barr as AG. No, she just doesn't get it that the house was BLOCKED every way they turned, but they only held a hearing. It  was the Senate's job to get evidence for the trial since they were holding the actual trial. It was never the House's job to get the evidence for the Senate trial. She is leaving out a step.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "It  was the Senate's job to get evidence for the trial since they were holding the actual trial. It was never the House's job to get the evidence for the Senate trial."
                  
                  This has been discussed by many here, many times, so there is no need for us to rehash the same arguments. But I disagree. I think it is exactly the job of the House. If it is their job to present impeachment charges, that means it is their job to support those charges.
                  
                  Your logic says it is the judge's job in a trial to get the evidence. Surely you don't believe that?
                  
                  However, if your thought were viewed differently, that it was the Senate's job to ask for, or allow, more evidence if they thought they needed it to make their decision, I would agree.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
            2. 79

               Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Shar does not think or assume to know how long it would have taken the House to get the witnesses they needed. Shar, just wanted them to do their job no matter how long it took. Like they did in the Clinton impeachment..The Houses investigation went on for almost two years. And yes the Senate also called three witnesse they felt were important.  Make all the excuses you want.
               In the end, the House did not do their job.
               
               Trump blocked nothing, the House did not follow the proper protocol to obtain documents, were advised of that fact, and just did not retry. And once again they did not subpoena Bolton, Perry, Mulvaney or any of the rest they claimed to want to have testified. They did subpoena 17 witnesses in which they deposed and heard testimony from. Each was asked by Republican congressmen if they were told by the White House not to testify. every one of them said no they were not told by anyone not to testify.
               
               Trump blocked no one from testifying, and he certainly could have.
               
               It's you that don't understand an impeachment procedure or perhaps you think if you repeat something enough it will just be true. Please provide a resource to prove your point that Trump blocked documents and witnesses.

               replyreport
   3. 79

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What I saw was a Senate that looked at the articles only. The defense shot down the articles falling back on the Constitution and proving the House did not bring any form of factual evidence to prove the allegations. They pointed out the fact that the procedures to obtain documents were not followed. They pointed out that the House did not call all the witnesse they apparently wanted to hear from. Although, there were no time restraints on the investigation phase. They also pointed out in one case the court was ready to rule on Bolton's aid as to would he be able to testify. Instead of hearing the judgment The house withdrew the subpoena to hear Bolton's aid.
      Claiming they did not need his testimony.
      
      Your question on why the Senate did not call any other witnesses.
      1. The defense's case was well proven on the actual articles of impeachment.
      2. Day after day the House got up and claimed their case was absolutely strong enough without other witnesses being called. Go figure.
      
      And finally, it was the Senates prerogative to call witnesse if they needed something more. The Senate considered what Allan Dershowitz presented in regard to the Constitution. He claimed that the articles were not impeachable. They listened, and most likely solely went with it and felt the trial was a dead-end proposition.
      
      You can blame the Senate for not subpena new witnesses. But, you can't deny their reasoning. I know you feel witnesses needed to be called, as they have been by the Senate in other cases. The problem is the cases you have sited on occasion are all different, unique in their own rights.
      
      I have made it clear that I felt all the witnesses the House felt they needed should have been heard. But I also can see why this trial was conducted as it was. It was conducted using the previous precedence.
      
      And I am sorry to say in my opinion the Dems knew exactly how it would go, and how it would turn out  It was well orchestrated to end just as it did.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I can indeed blame the Senate for not calling witnesses, Shar. Trump's defense team were not involved in the House inquiry proceedings and have no say in how the House ran the investigation.
         
         It's up to the House to decide the process they use, the same as the Senate made theirs. Why do think Mitch refused to allow a vote on witnesses and documents at the very start of the trial? Because he'd already decided he didn't want to hear from any new witnesses or the documents the WH refused to turn over?
         
         We both know why he didn't want to hear from Bolton, or see any more emails between the WH and OMB. If this evidence would clear Trump, you'd bet he would have allowed it.
         
         At any rate, OJ and Donnie were allowed to escape justice by a biased jury of their peers. They are equally innocent, arrogant, individuals who escaped justice, correct?
         
         And with the same attorney who convinced OJ's jury he was innocent, with the most evidence to the contrary many have ever seen to the contrary.  As in Trump's case as well.

         replyreport
2. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

   I really didn't expect many from the Right to comment on this OP, and I wasn't disappointed.

   replyreport
   1. 97

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Did you really expect people to complain because the jury didn't produce witnesses supporting the prosecutions assumptions and presumptions?  Really?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I expected from you what I got, Dan. Taking up for anything Trump does and says, that is. I was expecting a few patriots to post, and they did. Of course, you chimed in as well.

         replyreport
         1. 97

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How odd!  I didn't mention Trump or anything he said or did, yet I took up for what he does and says.  Perhaps a few lessons in reading comprehension are in order, Randy - what do you think?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yes indeed, you need them badly.

               replyreport
3. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

   Three times today McConnell refused to answer the question as to if he thought the POTUS's actions were improper. DUH!
   
   This a$$hole can't even admit he's a fraud. Get rid of this POS!

   replyreport