One thing i’ve heard mentioned several times is that the witnesses should have been called earlier in the process. Despite the fact that many were blocked from testifying by the white house. (Hence the obstruction of justice charge)
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
One thing i’ve heard mentioned several times is that the witnesses should have been called earlier in the process. Despite the fact that many were blocked from testifying by the white house. (Hence the obstruction of justice charge)
I fail to understand how our system of checks and balances would allow the executive branch to (legally) prevent witnesses from appearing in a trial being conducted by the legislative branch. I'm no constitutional scholar, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but this fails common sense. How can there be a fair and just trial without hearing from the witnesses with direct knowledge of what transpired?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions.
The house could have compelled other witnesses to testify but they were in too big of a hurry to rush the process. That is the system of checks and balances, it would have been up to the judicial branch. There is also Executive privilege in which all presidents have used and likely Trump would have used as well.
Who else are they going to support? Who has a better chance of meeting their goals than Trump?
Because it's not their job?
The Senate is the Jury. The House conducts the trial.
This is the answer. Just because Trump claims exec privilege doesn't mean it's a legit claim. But the House couldn't wait to get a ruling because it was in national interest to expedite impeachment, even though they sat on it for a month.
What he said^^^^
It’s not their job to call witnesses. They act as judge and jury and make a decision on the case the house presents.
Yes or no- does it seem plausible that Ukraine would be able to blackmail Joe Biden?
You understand wrong.
...again
the Chief Justice acts as a mediator enforcing the trial rules that have been approved by the senate. He has no power to compel witnesses.
They can if the vote to do so. So far they have not voted in favor of it.
I think they could do just about anything they voted to.
Now answer mine:
Why should 200 years of precedent be changed now?
I have not heard anything that suggests he would but a lot of people believe he could.
So they can. Meaning "it's not their job" is a disingenuous response to my original question.
I did not give you that answer, but does precedent matter to you otherwise?
Because the Chief Executive has blocked material witnesses from providing testimony that is almost certainly damaging to his defense. Tell me, is there a precedent for that happening before?
What do u think their goals are? When i was an evangelical it was to “glorify god in all that you do”. Maybe its changed. Maybe its “get roe v wade overturned even if it means supporting a rich politician who fukked a porn star while his wife was pregnant, who claims to be a christian but doesnt go to church, and has bragged about sexually assaulting women”
Obama blocked erik holder and key documents from committees during the fast and furious investigations in which the justice department was running guns to the mexican drug cartels. Some of these guns were used to kill Americans.
Only when i think of getting home late from the bars sat night
Of course there is. Every president going back as far as I know has claimed exec privilege.
Although I hope we do get witnesses. Do you have any issues with Schiff or Ciaramello being called? How about the Bidens? Crowdstrike? All of these were introduced by Schiff in his opening statements.
Ahh yes the old “two wrongs makes a right defense”. Lol.
I dont care what their goals are. I'm not the one with a problem with Evangelicals.
Who is a better option than Trump for the Evangelicals?
No, you aren't doing it right. This is Noir level trolling.
He asked for an explanation of my answer. Are you so blinded that you can't follow along?
Wait. We're talking about an impeachment trial. You said there was no precedent for the Senate calling witnesses in an impeachment trial. Now you're saying presidents have blocked evidence in other, non-impeachment investigations. These are not the same issue.
Similar threads
