Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[TexasTiger 12,835]

17 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That's exactly what I thought.  Why not get all the testimony, FROM BOTH SIDES, before deciding to head to a trial?

It'd sure look bad if some of the Republican witnesses had any exculpatory evidence. 

How is a Biden a relevant witness?

[bigbird 60,512]

46 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How is a Biden a relevant witness?

I'm not entirely sure he is or isn't.

It's the House's job to investigate and the Senate's to judge the facts presented to them by the House, wouldn't you agree? If so, why would witnesses be called in the Senate. That all should have been done during the investigation phase in the House.

[bigbird 60,512]

The House is like a Grand Jury. Imagine if the DA brought the evidence to them without presenting any exculpatory evidence. What would happen if they proceeded to a trial?

[homersapien 11,367]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

But the subpoenas were enforceable if they had waited, just like in Nixon. Why did they not wait?

I don't know.  Perhaps they felt like the timing would hand Trump the next election.

[homersapien 11,367]

Power Up: Almost 2 in 3 Republicans want Trump to allow top aides to testify at Senate trial, new Post-ABC poll finds

 

 

PAGING MITCH MCCONNELL: As the impeachment process moves from the House to a likely Senate trial, "bipartisan majorities, including almost 2 in 3 Republicans, also say [Trump] should allow his top aides to testify, something he has blocked during the House inquiry." 

• The breakdown: "Among Democrats, 79 percent say Trump should let his advisers appear before the Senate, while among Republicans, 64 percent agree. Among independents, 72 percent favor their appearance." 
• The Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, is asking the majority leader to subpoena the senior administration officials to appear as witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.  
• Six in 10 Americans are confident that Trump will receive a "fair trial" in the Senate: "On this question, there is rare agreement across political lines, with 62 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of Republicans and 64 percent independents expressing confidence in the proceedings," our colleagues write. 

But Republicans may want to pay heed to polling on this particular popular talking point to delegitimize the impeachment process: 

• "Most Americans say they believe the proceedings before the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have been fair to the president, with 55 percent saying hearings have been fair and 38 percent saying they were unfair," our colleagues report. 
• "That is virtually identical to public assessments of the proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee during [Bill] Clinton’s impeachment, and runs counter to Trump’s repeated complaint that he has been treated unfairly." 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

I find it hard to believe that 60% of Americans think a Senate trial will be fair with these sort of statements:

I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here': Graham predicts Trump impeachment will 'die quickly' in Senate

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/14/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-impeachment-trial/index.html

 

McConnell’s vow of ‘total coordination’ with White House on Senate impeachment trial angers Democrats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnells-vow-of-total-coordination-with-white-house-on-senate-impeachment-trial-angers-democrats/2019/12/13/9cb5a258-1dc7-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

[bigbird 60,512]

42 minutes ago, bigbird said:

 

It's the House's job to investigate and the Senate's to judge the facts presented to them by the House, wouldn't you agree? If so, why would witnesses be called in the Senate. That all should have been done during the investigation phase in the House.

Seriously, ICHY? That's literally layed out in the Constitution. So you dislike the Constitution?

I'll wait for your response.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

56 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I'm not entirely sure he is or isn't.

It's the House's job to investigate and the Senate's to judge the facts presented to them by the House, wouldn't you agree? If so, why would witnesses be called in the Senate. That all should have been done during the investigation phase in the House.

Juries are finders of fact. Trials are a fact finding process. What witnesses say is not preordained. Earlier Trump/Republicans were saying they wanted witnesses— this is the opportunity. The prosecutors may also want rebuttal witnesses. Trump says Rudy has helpful info— call him. Why not?

[bigbird 60,512]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Juries are finders of fact. Trials are a fact finding process. What witnesses say is not preordained. Earlier Trump/Republicans were saying they wanted witnesses— this is the opportunity. The prosecutors may also want rebuttal witnesses. Trump says Rudy has helpful info— call him. Why not?

The investigators are the finders of evidence. Juries should be the interpreters of the evidence.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

33 minutes ago, bigbird said:

The investigators are the finders of evidence. Juries should be the interpreters of the evidence.

Investigators are not the sole source of evidence- witnesses at trial carry far  more weight because it is role of fact finder to assess credibility.

[bigbird 60,512]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Investigators are not the sole source of evidence- witnesses at trial carry far  more weight because it is role of fact finder to assess credibility.

The house were the fact finders, right?

They decided to send it to the Senate. The Senate, IMO, are like a deliberating jury. Evaluating the facts presented by the House

[TexasTiger 12,835]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

The house were the fact finders?

They operate more like a grand jury issuing indictments— they find facts sufficient to warrant charges. The Senate’s task is to find whether there are sufficient facts to support removal.

[bigbird 60,512]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

The Senate’s task is to find whether there are sufficient facts to support removal.

That's what I've been saying. They interpret the facts given to them by the House

[TexasTiger 12,835]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That's what I've been saying. They interpret the facts given to them by the House

But their role is not necessarily that limited. They may have their own questions for witnesses already called and are free to call additional witnesses. 

[bigbird 60,512]

Thanks for continuing to prove me right, ICHY

[bigbird 60,512]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But their role is not necessarily that limited. They may have their own questions for witnesses already called and are free to call additional witnesses. 

Those questions should have been asked during the House's investigation

[TexasTiger 12,835]

6 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Those questions should have been asked during the House's investigation

I’m not sure you’re getting my point— the Senate has the authority to determine what it needs to do its job— the Senate is not subservient or otherwise secondary to the House on impeachment. That’s like saying a jury should only review the findings of a grand jury. The Senate can choose to limit its role and that’s exactly what Mitch might do.

[bigbird 60,512]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not sure you’re getting my point— the Senate has the authority to determine what it needs to do its job— the Senate is not subservient or otherwise secondary to the House on impeachment. That’s like saying a jury should only review the findings of a grand jury. The Senate can choose to limit its role and that’s exactly what Mitch might do.

I'm getting it. Maybe we're just talking past each other.

IMO, the house should've heard both sides and had a Court ruling to force other testimonies before moving forward. It would've made the whole thing at least look less political. I think you believe that the Senate should call the other testimonies that weren't heard in the house. I hope that's right. If so, why would they need to if the House would've done it in the first place?

[bigbird 60,512]

ICHY, you're priceless.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

35 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I'm getting it. Maybe we're just talking past each other.

IMO, the house should've heard both sides and had a Court ruling to force other testimonies before moving forward. It would've made the whole thing at least look less political. I think you believe that the Senate should call the other testimonies that weren't heard in the house. I hope that's right. If so, why would they need to if the House would've done it in the first place?

If we agree that “both sides” should be heard, and Trump refused to allow aides to testify, why object to calling witnesses at the Senate trial and letting the judge decide?

[bigbird 60,512]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If we agree that “both sides” should be heard, and Trump refused to allow aides to testify, why object to calling witnesses at the Senate trial and letting the judge decide?

Because the house should've taken it to the Court and forced it.

Trump's defense shouldn't have to prove himself innocent. The House should've proven him incontrovertibly guilty.

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

12 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Because the house should've taken it to the Court and forced it.

Trump's defense shouldn't have to prove himself innocent. The House should've proven him incontrovertibly guilty.

 

Proving is in the senate. Charging is in the house. Grand juries don’t convict. Trump’s aides are federal employees who serve the people’s interests, at least in theory. Trump’s testimony is optional.

[bigbird 60,512]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Proving is in the senate. Charging is in the house. Grand juries don’t convict. Trump’s aides are federal employees who serve the people’s interests, at least in theory. Trump’s testimony is optional.

We're just gonna go in circles with this. I think the House should've proven it incontrovertibly before taking it to the Senate and you think the Senate should prove the case. I think it's probably best to agree to disagree. I'm okay with that.

 

One other point though, by not taking it to the court and going ahead with the 2nd article the House is saying that they have the power to determine a subpoenas legitimacy and if it can override executive privilege claims. That isn't a legislative power. That solely belongs with the Court.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

The investigators are the finders of evidence. Juries should be the interpreters of the evidence.

And they found a lot of evidence.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:43 AM, bigbird said:

The house should have forced those testimonies in the impeachment inquiry not the Senate trial. To move forward to trial without them reeks of political bias and weakens the process and case against Trump.

Hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. The opportunity to prove those things true was missed.

Testimony from people who relate what they personally heard, experienced - or even inferred from circumstances - is not "hearsay".

There was sufficient information revealed by the house to justify an indictment, if not a conviction, including direct statements by Trump, his personal lawyer, an members of his staff.

Hopefully witnesses who can provide more direct testimony will be available to the Senate trial. 

But dismissing the case for impeachment based on the quality of the evidence is just a continuation of the Republican response which attacks process instead of considering the facts of the case.