A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this case democrats, convincing the jurors that there is guilt...
The evidence is already there, but the jurors, in this case republicans, have already said they do not see enough evidence. Since the word of peripheral witnesses hasn't been acceptable, it is a matter of pure obviousness that the documents and those with first hand knowledge need to be brought in to validate the case.
It is the fact that republicans are saying they have not seen enough that forces a trial to have all of the evidence that the president has been obstructing.
woodguru wrote:
The evidence is already there
Your premise is incorrect.
woodguru wrote:
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this case democrats, convincing the jurors that there is guilt...
The evidence is already there, but the jurors, in this case republicans, have already said they do not see enough evidence. Since the word of peripheral witnesses hasn't been acceptable, it is a matter of pure obviousness that the documents and those with first hand knowledge need to be brought in to validate the case.
It is the fact that republicans are saying they have not seen enough that forces a trial to have all of the evidence that the president has been obstructing.
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this ca... (
show quote)
I'll try to help you boy, your dudes in congress produced two articles of impeachment which do not show any laws to be broken. I guess your boys do not know much about the law. So, now you want to Senate to try to help you do what you could not do. get real.
woodguru wrote:
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this case democrats, convincing the jurors that there is guilt...
The evidence is already there, but the jurors, in this case republicans, have already said they do not see enough evidence. Since the word of peripheral witnesses hasn't been acceptable, it is a matter of pure obviousness that the documents and those with first hand knowledge need to be brought in to validate the case.
It is the fact that republicans are saying they have not seen enough that forces a trial to have all of the evidence that the president has been obstructing.
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this ca... (
show quote)
Next time woody, prove your case...wishing, hoping and fantasizing of getting Trump gone is not proof.
the problem is....your team is leading with their hearts and not the minds.......ends in disaster, like this will for the Dems.
Can't Throw Out A President Because He Wasn't Your Pick
You Run A Candidate That....
No....
No, You Don't Have Any Candidates Do You ??
I've Never Seen A Field So Bereft Of Ability
As The Democrats Of 2008, 2016, And 2020
The Impeachment Process Has Proven It's Not Just The Presidential Candidates
It's The Entire Democrat Party, From The Top Down
woodguru wrote:
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this case democrats, convincing the jurors that there is guilt...
The evidence is already there, but the jurors, in this case republicans, have already said they do not see enough evidence. Since the word of peripheral witnesses hasn't been acceptable, it is a matter of pure obviousness that the documents and those with first hand knowledge need to be brought in to validate the case.
It is the fact that republicans are saying they have not seen enough that forces a trial to have all of the evidence that the president has been obstructing.
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this ca... (
show quote)
House hearing:
The House had no time limit for holding their impeachment hearing. They called many witnesses and had plenty of opportunity to call many more. They chose not to. On the other hand, the Republicans were allowed to call zero witnesses and only one Republican allowed to cross examine the Democrat witnesses IF he presented his question in advanced and had them approved, Trump was allowed to call zero witnesses and had zero chance to cross examine. Nor have the transcripts of the closed door testimonies been turned over despite the request being legally made. The House ended their hearing, drew up their articles of impeachment, and eventually handed them to the Senate.
Senate trial:
Now the House Democrats want more witnesses and more documents which they did NOT include in their case they presented to the Senate. They also protest the idea that 1) the accuser be questioned or the accused be allowed to confront his accusor. And 2) That calling the people which the initial accusation revolves around, and they are still trying to make a case of (as was clearly spelled out by multiple House managers on Tursday; is inappropriate.
There are Senate Republicans who not only do not want the House Democrats to call their additional witnesses, but who simply want a dismissal or a quick aquittal without giving a chance for exculpatory evidence or witnesses to be presented, and no confronting of the whistleblower or the Bidens. While not calling witnesses or documentation not already included in the House case is legal, it is unsatisfactory. Without Trump being given a chance to confront his accusor and the key figures of the case (Joe and Hunter Biden) being heard from; this will leave a cloud over Trump's head. So I am in favor of witnesses being able to be called by the Trump legal team. Nor am I opposed to the Dems calling further witnesses beyond the case they presented so long as due process is in place with cross examination and the hearing closed door transcripts being provided to the Trump legal team.
I know some people have said they fear a bad precedent being set. I say a bad precedent was already set and it is too late to close the barn door now that the horses are loose.
JoyV wrote:
House hearing:The House had no time limit for holding their impeachment hearing. They called many witnesses and had plenty of opportunity to call many more. They chose not to. On the other hand, the Republicans were allowed to call zero witnesses and only one Republican allowed to cross examine the Democrat witnesses IF he presented his question in advanced and had them approved, Trump was allowed to call zero witnesses and had zero chance to cross examine. Nor have the transcripts of the closed door testimonies been turned over despite the request being legally made. The House ended their hearing, drew up their articles of impeachment, and eventually handed them to the Senate.
House hearing:The House had no time limit for hold... (
show quote)
And for the items you noted on the House impeachment hearing: The articles should be summarily dismissed as travesty of justice.
woodguru wrote:
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this case democrats, convincing the jurors that there is guilt...
The evidence is already there, but the jurors, in this case republicans, have already said they do not see enough evidence. Since the word of peripheral witnesses hasn't been acceptable, it is a matter of pure obviousness that the documents and those with first hand knowledge need to be brought in to validate the case.
It is the fact that republicans are saying they have not seen enough that forces a trial to have all of the evidence that the president has been obstructing.
A trial is a matter of the prosecution, in this ca... (
show quote)
LOL, I watched for a few hours....boring, each D that stands up says the same thing as the last D! JEEZZ.
I hope all of America is watching this, it should kill off lots of nit-wits that vote Democrat.
Then Adam Shittf gets up and says "we can not let the voters decide who is President" Well, shades of the Soviet Union. Maybe Shittf should be our dictator for life.!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.