Impeachment Witnesses

[Agent220]

How many people believe witnesses will be allowed?

[Austin Ellen]

I don't think so but I'm not against it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

It's the only way the truth will come out.

Republicans complain that no defense witnesses appeared during the impeachment process in the House. Democrats complain that certain witnesses were not allowed to testify by Trump. Everyone who has valued testimony should be able to appear before the Senate.

The first question that needs to be answered is whether or not Trump is guilty of the charges made against him.

The second question that needs to be answered, if the first question finds Trump guilty of the charges, is whether or not he should be removed from office.

At this point in time, I have no idea on the first question. ON the second question, I don't think anything he might have done merits removal from office.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I don't think so but I'm not against it.

Why?

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Why?

Queue up behind me. Got a question still waiting to be answered.

[Dev Null]

If Republican senators don't allow witnesses, some of them will answer for it in November, since most Americans want witnesses, including most Republicans. Specifically, 72% of the U.S. public, 84% of Democrats, and 69% of Republicans.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1ZL33O

If Republicans ask for Hunter Biden to testify, the Democrats should respond by calling Howdy Doody to testify. He has as much to do with Trump's decision to try and rig the election as Hunter Biden does.

[Austin Ellen]

I don't think they will call witnesses because it's not relevant. I don't believe that I've heard Bolton confirm or state that he was on the telephone call. So what does he have? Hearsay? I don't know - was he on the telephone call? But all it would do is prolong this trial and I have a feeling that Senators don't want to do that. And it comes down to - this is not a crime.

I wouldn't mind hearing from other people thou. I think that would be interesting. And yes, the Bidens would need to be called because that's what started this whole thing in the first place.

Precious dear. I already answered your question.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Why?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

I think if any witness testimony is required, it should come from the pool of 18 (not 17) House witnesses previously assembled. Then determine from there. Having said that, I do not see need for witnesses at all as the case is garbage as delivered.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I think if any witness testimony is required, it should come from the pool of 18 (not 17) House witnesses previously assembled. Then determine from there. Having said that, I do not see need for witnesses at all as the case is garbage as delivered.

The House wanted several other witnesses but Trump blocked them. Now why did he do that if the telephone call was "perfect"?

Anyone whose testimony is relevant to the charges made by the House should appear before the Senate.

[Austin Ellen]

Because he does not have to prove he is innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It's their show.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The House wanted several other witnesses but Trump blocked them. Now why did he do that if the telephone call was "perfect"?

Anyone whose testimony is relevant to the charges made by the House should appear before the Senate.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Because he does not have to prove he is innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It's their show.

Blocking witnesses from testifying will only cast a shadow over any decisions made by the Senate. If Trump is innocent, the witnesses will support that claim.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

...
Precious dear. I already answered your question.

I must have missed it. Could you supply the specific link that satisfies the narrow parameters of the answer, please?

[Dev Null]

If Trump were innocent, he would be begging for his inner circle to testify.

The fact that he has blocked them from testifying demonstrates clearly that he's got something to hide.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The House wanted several other witnesses but Trump blocked them. Now why did he do that if the telephone call was "perfect"?

Anyone whose testimony is relevant to the charges made by the House should appear before the Senate.

I seriously think trump wants to drag this out. If he wanted to squash it in a heartbeat, he would release a verbatim transcript, after the proper intelligence scrutiny applied, of the phone call so as everyone can get the complete "perfect" phone call. Like Bolton transcript from book (and the current phone call one), a rough edit does nothing for current clarity. *EXCEPT* what the White House released was enough to call into question what has already been corroborated by others.

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Because he does not have to prove he is innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It's their show.

I have next to nothing knowledge in Constitutional law, but what you state only applies in a court room. Not the Senate floor. Your point is moot.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Blocking witnesses from testifying will only cast a shadow over any decisions made by the Senate. If Trump is innocent, the witnesses will support that claim.

I was listening to Tom Brokaw (sp) talking about his early experiences in journalism. Specifically Watergate. He was talking to a lawyer who specialized in Constitutional Law and asked him about executive privilege. The lawyer replied that is is the presidents right to exercise it *EXCEPT* for matters involving impeachment.