"Witnesses" A Ruse!

[Uber Genius]

Our noble press seems to be in lockstep with the noble Senator from NY, Chuck Schumer, in favor for calling witness. After all what trial doesn't have witnesses?

Even Fox News has been duped into adopting this language of witnesses.

However witnesses in any trial anywhere in the U.S. are in no way univocal to the so called, "Witnesses," in the impeachment trial in the senate!

In no court in the land can a prosecutor decide during a trial that he wants to reopen his investigation and interrogate witnesses to find out what they might say. The prosecutor must submit his or her witness list to the Judge and defense in discovery. Hollywood may produce "surprise" witnesses, but real life prosecutors can not.

The law, not just in the U.S., but in many legal systems over the last 400 years separates the process of investigation from the case-making portion, specifically to avoid the fishing expeditions in hope that eventually a prosecutor can make his or her weak case stronger. Imagine that on cross examination witnesses for the prosecution reveal say, "The defendant said, 'I want nothing, no quid pro quo." And as a prosecutor you saw your only direct evidence for a quid pro quo go out the window. The you go back to colleagues and says "We are losing this case, did you see the jury?" After conferring, you decide to through a bunch of witnesses on the stand to muddle the case perhaps. Shoot you are lost anyways so might as well just start interviewing everyone (because 16 hearsay witnesses and 1 direct witness weren't enough).

To turn a trial into a special investigation (which was in theory supposed to happen in the House) is not constitutional.

So the vote on "Witnesses," is actually a vote to "reopen the impeachment investigation."

One might argue that hearsay witnesses aren't allowed, and that leading witnesses in direct examination are also not allowed, and that misrepresenting witness testimony from deposition is not allowed, but have all occurred.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The entire case is based on what Trump had going on in his mind when he did and said certain things.
This is the quagmire we get into with the "hate" crime dilemma. For example.
You try to pass someone who is going 20 mile under the speed limit. They speed up as you pass them and you have to exceed the speed limit trying to get out of the passing lane. The officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket. It is discovered that the person you were passing happened to be black. It is alleged that you were speeding because you hated the black person and therefore your innocent passing incident suddenly becomes a hate crime and therefore you do jail time (just an extreme example).
Such it is with the Dems case. They make the assumption that Trump did things to "further his personal political career." I wish I had a motive detector like they do!
Thing is, is it possible to do a good thing and it not benefit you personally in some way? Is that really a crime. Of course it all has to do with the observers own intentions and motives. You can fame anyone's actions in a negative light and make them out to be evil.

 

[redleghunter]

Such it is with the Dems case. They make the assumption that Trump did things to "further his personal political career." I wish I had a motive detector like they do!

That's because they being corrupt swamp politicians just 'know' that is what he was thinking because that is what they would do and have done.

 

[Yarddog]

Our noble press seems to be in lockstep with the noble Senator from NY, Chuck Schumer, in favor for calling witness. After all what trial doesn't have witnesses?

Even Fox News has been duped into adopting this language of witnesses.

However witnesses in any trial anywhere in the U.S. are in no way univocal to the so called, "Witnesses," in the impeachment trial in the senate!

In no court in the land can a prosecutor decide during a trial that he wants to reopen his investigation and interrogate witnesses to find out what they might say. The prosecutor must submit his or her witness list to the Judge and defense in discovery. Hollywood may produce "surprise" witnesses, but real life prosecutors can not.

The law, not just in the U.S., but in many legal systems over the last 400 years separates the process of investigation from the case-making portion, specifically to avoid the fishing expeditions in hope that eventually a prosecutor can make his or her weak case stronger. Imagine that on cross examination witnesses for the prosecution reveal say, "The defendant said, 'I want nothing, no quid pro quo." And as a prosecutor you saw your only direct evidence for a quid pro quo go out the window. The you go back to colleagues and says "We are losing this case, did you see the jury?" After conferring, you decide to through a bunch of witnesses on the stand to muddle the case perhaps. Shoot you are lost anyways so might as well just start interviewing everyone (because 16 hearsay witnesses and 1 direct witness weren't enough).

To turn a trial into a special investigation (which was in theory supposed to happen in the House) is not constitutional.

So the vote on "Witnesses," is actually a vote to "reopen the impeachment investigation."

One might argue that hearsay witnesses aren't allowed, and that leading witnesses in direct examination are also not allowed, and that misrepresenting witness testimony from deposition is not allowed, but have all occurred.

You seem to assume that this Senate trial works by the same rules that the court system does, which is a very naïve way to observe this. The rules are set by the Senate not the courts. The Senate can vote to hear from whatever witnesses they choose.

 

[Uber Genius]

You seem to assume that this Senate trial works by the same rules that the court system does, which is a very naïve way to observe this. The rules are set by the Senate not the courts. The Senate can vote to hear from whatever witnesses they choose.

Not at all. I'm not the one saying, "What trial doesn't have witnesses?" We have heard that from the press ...oh 10,000 times in the last two weeks. So your point seems to completely the point in my OP. Perhaps you should have pointed out to the press that it is very naive to call this process a trial since it the mainstream media's ruse!

Don't bother, I know your strawman was not for the media's benefit.

 

[Yarddog]

Not at all. I'm not the one saying, "What trial doesn't have witnesses?"

It is a trial. Every Senate trial has had witnesses.

So your point seems to completely the point in my OP.

I assume you left out something in this line but my point doesn't help your OP out since it went on to rant about court cases and my point was that the Senate does not operate by Court rules.

Perhaps you should have pointed out to the press that it is very naive to call this process a trial since it the mainstream media's ruse!

It is a trial though. Most of them understand that it isn't a Court trial where judiciary rules necessarily apply.

I guess you don't know what a straw man arguement is, either.

 

[Uber Genius]

"What trial doesn't have witnesses?" heard again this morning on Fox Financial News with Maria. Also heard this morning on NPR news.

So my point stands.

No previous impeachment trial allowed the Senate to reopen the House Impeachment Investigation and just start calling people to see what they might know. NONE OF THEM.

No criminal trial anywhere allows this type of fishing expedition by prosecution.

Senate heard from 13 witnesses, 193 statements, 18 depositions, of 28,000 pages of evidence and fielded 180 questions from Senators.

Yet mainstream media in lock-step with Democrats continues to misrepresent the facts, and they find willing accomplices out on social media. Nothing new here I suppose. Two weeks ago I heard a CNN reporter still making the false claim that "The Don" was applauding the neo-nazis at Charlotteville. Even when they know we had the LA Times transcript of Trump's Charlotteville comments. Hmm... sounds familiar for some reason.

 

[redleghunter]

Senate heard from 13 witnesses, 193 statements, 18 depositions, of 28,000 pages of evidence and fielded 180 questions from Senators.

This. Seems to be absent in most of the statements from Democrats and the media parrots the same claim without doing their own independent checks. Almost seems like the media does not care and are carrying the water for the Democrats and their pseudo narratives.