PeterS

yup

steve66613

Peters: do you know of a trial that had no evidence or witnesses?

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Here ya go.

We've got all the witnesses you need ..................Goober.

EmilyD

If your lawyers told everyone they had a rock solid case...a case they could prove beyond any doubt, with 18 witnesses and 28,000 pages of evidence, wouldn't you believe they were ready to go to trial? Then you go to court, with high confidence in your team, when your wonderful team of lawyers stand up and tell the Judge that they want more witnesses and they don't have enough evidence, how would you feel then?

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

If you're alluding to Trump Pete...

Schumer Falsely Claims There Have Been 'No Witnesses, No Documents' During Impeachment
Matt Margolis January 31, 2020
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was noticeably outraged by the Senate's v**e Friday against compelling more witnesses and documents, calling it a “tragedy on a very large scale.”

“No witnesses, no documents in an impeachment trial is a perfidy. It is a grand tragedy. One of the worst tragedies that the Senate has overcome. America will remember this day, unfortunately," Schumer added.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1223386264231170048

Unfortunately for him, he's completely wrong. The facts are the Senate has received documents and testimony. The only real tragedy was the mockery that House Democrats made of their impeachment inquiry when Adam Schiff refused to allow Republicans to call any of their own witnesses.

Let's examine the "no documents, no witnesses" lie further.

Jenna Ellis, a constitutional law attorney and the senior legal advisor to the Trump 2020 campaign, destroyed the Schumer lie by breaking down impeachment by the numbers on Twitter. PJ Media has generated the following graphic from those numbers:



Does that look like "no witnesses, no documents" to you? Who really blocked witnesses, Republicans or Democrats? Schumer should direct his anger at House Democrats for botching their impeachment. They're the ones who claimed they had a solid case and rushed to v**e for impeachment before Christmas, only to hold it up in the House for a month. They're the ones who failed to make their case but impeached Trump anyway without being able to convince a single Republican. The only tragedy here is that Democrats put us through a sham, partisan impeachment and wasted time that could have been spent doing the business of the American people.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Did we require new witnesses and new evidence to convict el Chapo?

Thought we had an ironclad case before we went to court...

That was silly of us...

He might have gotten off...

kemmer

Dwight Logan

If you really want no evidence or witnesses ythen v**e for those who gave us the House impeachment chaos because they would make their own created laws to use .

kemmer

Huh?

PeterS

The question is, can you have a trial with no evidence or witnesses. I personally don't think you can...

EmilyD

Why do you think there are no witnesses? There are 18 witnesses...and 28,000+ pages of evidence, not to mention the transcript of Trump's call to Zelensky. The Democrat Managers had 24 hours to argue their case, and following the Democrats, Trump's Counsel had their 24 hours. Testimony was given by these witnesses that both the Managers AND Trump's Counsel used. If they have such a rock solid case, and have already argued in the Senate trial and stated that they have proved guilt not only with reasonable doubt, but no doubt at all (Nadler and Schiff's words).....

THEN WHY DO THEY NEED MORE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE?????

During the House hearings, they did not allow Trump's counsel to be present and Republicans were not allowed to call any of their own witnesses. Cross examination of the witnesses that only the Dems called was not allowed. For the Dems to want to call more witnesses AFTER they said they proved their case just shows how much they are trying to rig this process. The Senate is not going to let them continue their shenanigans any further.

WEBCO

Don't forget that they didn't fight for these witnesses. They could have, but didn't, why? Because they knew they would lose. They knew that their subpoenas were illegal. Also ask why the house hasn't released the ICIG deposition. All the other 17 have, and you could at least release a redacted version, or put it in a skiff.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

That depends on whether we're talking about this impeachment spectacle or a trial in a court of law.

In a court of law, there are the rules for discovery; both the prosecution and the defense are required to disclose of all relevant facts and documents to the other side prior to trial, this includes written discovery (Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and evidence documentation), document production, depositions, and witness lists.

Those flaming Impeachers in the HOR provided not one iota of discovery to the Trump defense team and denied receiving any thing even hinting at discovery or exculpatory testimony or evidence from them. The same fire breathing fools that marked down their high crimes and misdemeanors to the level of shop lifting came onto the senate floor and made one of the most pathetic attempts to defend their foolishness ever seen in the halls of congress.

President Trump's team was ready for them and the progressive fools were totally unprepared, they heard more about the Constitution of the United States in 21 hours than they ever learned in their entire miserable lives. Trump's defense was so compelling, it even knocked a couple of shaky Republican senators in the head and woke them the hell up.