71% OF REPUBLICANS WANT MITCH MCCONNELL TO CALL WITNESSES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, NEW POLL SHOWS

[tulc]

71% of Republicans want Mitch McConnell to call witnesses at Trump impeachment trial, new poll shows

SurveyUSA asked 4,096 registered voters whether witnesses with firsthand knowledge should be allowed to testify, with 71 percent of Republicans, 93 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents saying witnesses should be allowed to testify. Only 15 percent of Republicans said that they should not be allowed to testify, while 4 percent of Democrats, and 7 percent of Independents said they shouldn't. Only 3 percent of Democrats were unsure, with 12 percent of Independents and 14 percent of Republicans answering not sure.

tulc(thought this was interesting)

 

[HTacianas]

71% of Republicans want Mitch McConnell to call witnesses at Trump impeachment trial, new poll shows

tulc(thought this was interesting)

Does it say what witnesses should be called?

 

[archer75]

I think most humans recognize that a trial without witnesses is a joke.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think most humans recognize that a trial without witnesses is a joke.

I think most freethinking people recognize that an impeachment without charges of a statutory crime is a waste of time. The entire process has been made into a mockery by Nancy so why bother pretending to be objective? McConnell should drag this process out to keep the Democrat Senators campaigning for President off the campaign trail for as long as possible before dropping the articles in the trash and abandoning the entire thing.

 

[redleghunter]

Does it say what witnesses should be called?

Yes I want Adam Schiff and the alleged Whistleblower to testify.

Democrats had their chance to call witnesses but failed to fight it in court. Now they want McConnell to do what they failed to do.

The House Republicans were denied all but two of their witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. And the President was not allowed legal counsel to cross examine witnesses.

 

[redleghunter]

I think most humans recognize that a trial without witnesses is a joke.

Schumer made a request to subpoena documents the White House refused to release during the impeachment in the House. Once again the House did not subpoena the documents as they wanted to avoid a legal battle. Then told us that speed of the process was of the essence because Trump was an existential threat to our Republic. Then took recess for Thanksgiving, then took recess for Christmas and then sat on the articles for three weeks. Now they want McConnell to turn their D- into an A+

 

[JohnAshton]

All good Americans want witnesses called.

71% OF REPUBLICANS WANT MITCH MCCONNELL TO CALL WITNESSES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, NEW POLL SHOWS

 

[Hank77]

Yes I want Adam Schiff and the alleged Whistleblower to testify.

Adam Schiff would be fine but the whistleblower cannot be forced to reveal themselves, their identity is protected by the law.
I suppose the Senate could video conference with the whistleblower and their attorney by concealing their physical identity and the lawyer speaking for him/her.

 

[HTacianas]

Yes I want Adam Schiff and the alleged Whistleblower to testify.

Democrats had their chance to call witnesses but failed to fight it in court. Now they want McConnell to do what they failed to do.

The House Republicans were denied all but two of their witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. And the President was not allowed legal counsel to cross examine witnesses.

The thing here is, Trump is charged with an ambiguous "abuse of power". As someone pointed out above, it is not a statutory crime. Trump admitted to the conduct by releasing the transcript of the call with Zelinsky and is admitting to all of the facts of the impeachment but is arguing that it doesn't constitute a crime.

In court, when a defendant stipulates to the facts alleged in an indictment there is no longer a dispute of fact for a jury to decide, but a question of law for a judge to decide. In that case a hearing would be held and the judge would decide whether the conduct alleged constitutes a crime. In an impeachment trial, the Senate is both arbiter of fact as well as law, in other words, judge and jury. The procedure they are using begins by answering the question of law before going to questions of fact, so the procedure is legitimate. If the conduct alleged does not constitute a crime, the case is dismissed.

The way the democrats have been phrasing their argument, i.e., "interfering with our election" and "for his own personal gain", implies a campaign finance violation. Campaign finance violations only rarely result in convictions for crimes, but only in civil sanctions by the FEC.

 

[Monksailor]

Polls.....

 

[redleghunter]

Adam Schiff would be fine but the whistleblower cannot be forced to reveal themselves, their identity is protected by the law.
I suppose the Senate could video conference with the whistleblower and their attorney by concealing their physical identity and the lawyer speaking for him/her.

There’s no law I am aware of which prevents identifying a whistleblower for the purposes of testifying.

 

[Hank77]

Democrats had their chance to call witnesses but failed to fight it in court. Now they want McConnell to do what they failed to do.

This isn't a competition between Democrats and Republicans, it isn't a time to say ''well the Dems. screwed up by not going to court, so no documents or witnesses should testify at the trial" because what that is really saying is that it's not important for the American people to know the truth, whatever the truth may be.

 

[redleghunter]

This isn't a competition between Democrats and Republicans, it isn't a time to say ''well the Dems. screwed up by not going to court, so no documents or witnesses should testify at the trial" because what that is really saying is that it's not important for the American people to know the truth, whatever the truth may be.

That’s a nice talking point from Schumer.

The fact is the House committees if they deemed the testimony of WH officials crucial to their investigation, then they should have subpoenaed said witnesses and challenge in court if refused. They did not follow this procedure.

The House Democrats also failed to get a chamber vote of the full House before proceeding with committee investigations. That is fine if it was truly a committee investigation but when they tagged on “impeachment” to committee investigations they ended up impeaching by committee and not the full House.

The House did vote on procedure, however could not Constitutionally delegate its power to impeach to committees.

Schiff and gang did a shabby job rushing this through and then ended up sitting on the articles hoping the Senate would cave to do the work the House has a constitutional duty to perform.

 

[redleghunter]

Adam Schiff would be fine but the whistleblower cannot be forced to reveal themselves, their identity is protected by the law.
I suppose the Senate could video conference with the whistleblower and their attorney by concealing their physical identity and the lawyer speaking for him/her.

Well there is a valid argument that the whistleblower is not a whistleblower. He (everyone in DC knows who “he” is) is not a first hand witness to the Zelensky phone call. What happened is someone who was in that room (cough Vindman) or listening in provided their opinion of the phone call to someone in one of the intelligence agencies (cough CIA). This person being in an agency outside the WH submitted information to their agency IG. This person also contacted the House intelligence committee for advice. Just so happens to be a staffer for none other than Adam Schiff and from there this non whistleblower received legal counsel.

The identity of the “whistleblower” is the worst kept secret in DC. And he just so happens to be close with an Adam Schiff aide. That’s a nice tidy deal and if witnesses are going to be called from the WH I’m sure the alleged Whistleblower will have to be called and Vindman will have to be called again by the WH defense as well. Why? Because Vindman was about to “out” the person he gave the information on the call to. But Adam Schiff interrupted his testimony stopping him from naming names. This is the interesting part. Vindman named two individuals he shared information with within the WH staff but was stopped from identifying the third name.


It would then tie Vindman as a leaker of classified information, link him to the CIA whistleblower, the whistleblower to Adam Schiff’s staff and friend of Schiff’s personal aide.

And who led the quest against Trump? Adam Schiff. Who is the lead House Manager? Adam Schiff. Who helped either directly or indirectly the alleged Whistleblower? Adam Schiff.

 

[Hank77]

If you're right about the Whistleblower's identity not be protected by law then let him/her testify.

That’s a nice talking point from Schumer.

lol, what part of what I said did Schumer say?
I heard someone who called in to C-SPAN today who said something about the "Americans learning the truth" and I've heard every Dem. speaker in the Senate today say something like that.
I want to hear all the witnesses that have information.

 

[redleghunter]

If you're right about the Whistleblower's identity not be protected by law then let him/her testify.


lol, what part of what I said did Schumer say?
I heard someone who called in to C-SPAN today who said something about the "Americans learning the truth" and I've heard every Dem. speaker in the Senate today say something like that.

The American people should have heard from all the witnesses before the President being impeached. Schiff shot down GOP called witnesses. He used committee rules to do so when it should have been the entire House voting.

 

[redleghunter]

All good Americans want witnesses called.

71% OF REPUBLICANS WANT MITCH MCCONNELL TO CALL WITNESSES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, NEW POLL SHOWS

Yes. The alleged Whistleblower and whoever gave him classified information. Adam Schiff, Adam Schiff’s committee staffer, Adam Schiff’s personal aide who knows the alleged Whistleblower.

 

[Hank77]

The way the democrats have been phrasing their argument, i.e., "interfering with our election" and "for his own personal gain", implies a campaign finance violation. Campaign finance violations only rarely result in convictions for crimes, but only in civil sanctions by the FEC.

How is getting Ukraine to announce they are opening an investigation into the Bidens and Crowdstrike related to finance violations?

 

[Hank77]

The American people should have heard from all the witnesses before the President being impeached. Schiff shot down GOP called witnesses. He used committee rules to do so when it should have been the entire House voting.

I don't care how they screwed up, I don't care what they 'should' have done.
If the Republicans don't allow documents, which they aren't going to, and witnesses, they aren't any better. Obviously they haven't chosen to take the high road either.

And I just missed hearing something important. I need to just listen and not be trying to write at the same time.

 

[HTacianas]

How is getting Ukraine to announce they are opening an investigation into the Bidens and Crowdstrike related to finance violations?

It's campaign finance laws that prohibit foreigners from contributing to political campaigns.