Well, when you suppress the evidence you take away that argument.
Well, when you suppress the evidence you take away that argument.
Hard to tell how many lawyers Trump has and why they are advising this.
Upvote
0
Well, when you suppress the evidence you take away that argument.
Well, when you suppress the evidence you take away that argument.
PROTECTION. This is the only reason.Why exactly WOULDN’T you want the Democrats to be able to call administration officials in the impeachment trial?
The President says he did nothing wrong, and the witnesses the Democrats want to call are all Trump’s own men. Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, Guilliani these are all Trump administration figures and who continue to support him. Surely if he did nothing wrong, then they can all testify to exactly that and it’s over?
The trial will be in the senate with a Republican majority, the Democratic senators will have no power to play games with the rules or anything. All they’re asking for is for the people who were involved to tell the truth under oath.
So please explain to me, why don’t you want these people to clear your Presidents name? Do you really not want to hear what they have to say, and put this whole thing to bed once and for all?
For a follow up question, are you not also scared that next time there’s a Democrat in power this precedent will also be used in reverse?
No comparison to Trump, she could not become president, nor generate billions in the corporate world. The point was, that the FBI is capable of setting up and sending anyone to prison.Are we now comparing Trump to Mother Teresa? LOL.
What kind of videos do you and your mom share?
Uh huh.
And Trump watching all his closest associates go to prison for various activities while he somehow is lilly white is justice, right?
Congress passes a law to allocate money, and then Trump obstructs it. And then obstructs witnesses and suppresses evidence.
An Impeachment trial cannot be thrown out. The person is either found guilty of one, some, or all the articles of impeachment or not guilty of one, some, or all the articles. In other words, if none they are acquitted, as Bill Clinton was.I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.
I think he is thinking of his legacy and doesn't want an acquittal on his resume.
He' hoping for it to be thrown out for lack of evidence.
An Impeachment trial cannot be thrown out. The person is either found guilty of one, some, or all the articles of impeachment or not guilty of one, some, or all the articles. In other words, if none they are acquitted, as Bill Clinton was.
He will still be the third president to be impeached, that doesn't go away.
So he can either be acquitted because there wasn't any trial or he can have a full trial where the evidence doesn't show he's guilty and he's acquitted.
If it were me, I'd want to prove my innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. I wouldn't want 50% of the country thinking that I got away with something because the Republicans control the Senate.
No comparison to Trump, she could not become president
, nor generate billions in the corporate world.
The point was, that the FBI is capable of setting up and sending anyone to prison.
Movies ... I got rid of the ones that were copied though, dont want Mueller knocking on my door!
He's not lilly white, he's orange.
Mother Teresa us a saint, she had her purpose, Trump has his. Btw, Romans 13:1, 2 clearly says that God, Who is sovereign, appoints all leaders for His purpose and thise who would rebel against His will are judged.LOL!
That's probably because she didn't have a daddy who made her millionaire at age 8 and who gave her huge loans of money and broke gaming laws to bail her out when she hit some rough patches. But that's because she's a LOSER.
Is that why Hillary is still free?
Huh? I mean, I'd be glad for people who violate copyright laws to be forced to take responsibility for the crime, but the first person would be Trump who repeatedly plays music at his Nuremburg Rallies that he doesn't get the rights for (which is why he's CONSTANTLY being commanded by various bands to STOP using their music) and he likes to retweet things that he doesn't own the copyright for.
Mother Teresa us a saint, she had her purpose, Trump has his.
Btw, Romans 13:1, 2 clearly says that God, Who is sovereign, appoints all leaders for His purpose and thise who would rebel against His will are judged.
Hillary will be judged.
No one really gets away with anything. If not in this life, afterwards. She would be better off receiving judgment during this life and repenting.
Are we now comparing Trump to Mother Teresa?
What kind of videos do you and your mom share?
Uh huh.
And Trump watching all his closest associates go to prison for various activities while he somehow is lilly white is justice, right?
Witnesses are generally presented at trials, presented before the judge and jury to answer questions both by the prosecutors and the defence. The judge makes sure that the questions are on point (to the purpose of the trial) and are not leading the witness etc.In my point of view, the time for witnesses was in the house, but considering it was a 1-sided railroading job, maybe witnesses would be a good thing.
Typically in a trial the defense presents their case of innocence, this might also simply be pointing out how weak the prosecution's case is, but might present evidence showing how the defendant can't be guilty.Although, I reject the premise they would be needed to clear the President.
Of the witnesses that testified in the House hearings, none of them seemed to be partisan. They all seemed to be professionals and stating facts rather than opinions and subjective judgements.He's in no danger at this moment of being impeached since the case against him is nothing but unsubstantiated partisan claptrap.
They followed the rules that were established by the Republicans during the Bill Clinton hearings.As far as future presidents are concerned, the Dems have set the precedent that a future Repub House can push through partisan impeachment articles using the same railroading techniques the Dems just employed.
Sure, yes. It's a political process on full display to the public. Ultimately the public will decide at the next election if each member of congress acted in the best interests of the country.And if that President tries to go to the courts to prevent the setup, they can also just add those actions to the impeachment articles.
Sure, the hardcore Trump supporters want Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the whistleblower to testify.Yes, and Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the so-called whistleblower are also eligible, among others.
Mueller was commissioned by the Republican Acting Attorney General Rod Rossenstein. Mueller wasn't working for the Dems, and wasn't looking to find evidence to press any charges against the sitting president. Even if he found evidence of wrong doing by the sitting president, he still wasn't going to press charges.Personally, I was finished after Muller... I'm not willing to waste any more time and money hunting for reasons to overturn this election.
Why exactly WOULDN’T you want the Democrats to be able to call administration officials in the impeachment trial?
The President says he did nothing wrong, and the witnesses the Democrats want to call are all Trump’s own men. Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, Guilliani these are all Trump administration figures and who continue to support him. Surely if he did nothing wrong, then they can all testify to exactly that and it’s over?
The trial will be in the senate with a Republican majority, the Democratic senators will have no power to play games with the rules or anything. All they’re asking for is for the people who were involved to tell the truth under oath.
So please explain to me, why don’t you want these people to clear your Presidents name? Do you really not want to hear what they have to say, and put this whole thing to bed once and for all?
For a follow up question, are you not also scared that next time there’s a Democrat in power this precedent will also be used in reverse?
As much as we like him
you probably still shouldn't do that?
M-Bob
Whatever, the fact remains that the Senate may call as witnesses the people I identified but it will not call those that have no information to give that is relevant to the charges.Sure, the hardcore Trump supporters want Schiff, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the whistleblower to testify.
Only the whistleblower is at all relevant to the case and most people would consider the testimony of Guiliani, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney etc to be much more relevant than that of the whistleblower.
I do not know what every Trump supporter thinks about this, and I doubt that you do either. The President may seek to call some people, but he has already made it clear that he is wary of transgressing the separation of powers.The question of this thread is why would Trump's supporters not want to hear testimony from
Guiliani, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney etc
Our point is that the president's remarks to date lead to the opposite conclusion. He feels that he deserves an acquittal, for this to be on the record.Did anyone say otherwise? My point is that a mistrial usually concludes without an acquittal on the record. Which is what I believe Trump is after.