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

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (47 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks 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?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

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

      1. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 2 weeks 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.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 weeks 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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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!

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 weeks 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).

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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!

      2. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 2 weeks 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!

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image90
            MizBejabbersposted 2 weeks 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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 2 weeks 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

          2. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks ago

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

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 weeks 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?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 weeks 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?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes indeed, you need them badly.

  3. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks 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!

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)