- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/25/20 at 10:38 am to davyjones
quote:Democrats are like a barking dog at the end of a leash. They are milking the “we want witnesses” charade. But just like if you give that barking dog some slack—he’ll cower—democrats know if witnesses get called it won’t end well.
Trump side may want witnesses but don't need them, while other side may need witnesses but don't want them - because they know there's no help to be had with any witness.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:01 am to Wednesday
quote:
A witness you’ve never interviewed before is a bad idea. You think Hunter Biden cares if he’s under oath?
THIS.
I don't understand the folks on here who think they will get some great new info on liberal corruption by calling witnesses. The folks won't answer the questions they will plead the fifth and the media will claim victory.
Hunter could get up on the stand and claim he received 8 million dollars to do zero work and the media wouldn't report it and would state that Biden did a great job with his testimony.
Republicans have NOTHING to gain by calling any additional witnesses.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:06 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
Republicans have NOTHING to gain by calling any additional witnesses.
I only want witness for the DEFENSE if a DISMISSAL is rejected.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:11 am to ChineseBandit58
I'm not certain, but I believe the minimal elements of this trial that are necessary to be able to move forward with an offical "guilty or not guilty" vote will be satisfied upon completion of the President's case that just started, the 24 hour case. In which case I guess it would go: finish President's case, address witnesses, "questions," then proceed to final vote. I could be wrong on this of course.
ETA...."questions" I have questions about the questions, I guess. It could be a possibility that they move for dismissal before getting to that part, but I'd suggest going through that phase if it's all that's left for a final, official vote.
ETA...."questions" I have questions about the questions, I guess. It could be a possibility that they move for dismissal before getting to that part, but I'd suggest going through that phase if it's all that's left for a final, official vote.
This post was edited on 1/25/20 at 11:18 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:25 am to davyjones
quote:
ETA...."questions" I have questions about the questions, I guess. It could be a possibility that they move for dismissal before getting to that part, but I'd suggest going through that phase if it's all that's left for a final, official vote.
It's my impression that Senate questions are required by the procedures adopted before any consideration of additional witness is brought to a vote.
MY point all along is that part of the DEFENSE - prior to Senate questions - should be the ability to call REBUTTAL witnesses to the articles put forth in the record so far.
That up to this point - the DEFENSE of the POTUS has been denied ANY degree of establishing a true record to be judged.
And in presenting a REBUTTAL witness the Prosecution should NOT be granted the ability to ADD TO THE CHARGES already presented for trial.
THAT is my only point = but I seem to not be able to present it correctly
This post was edited on 1/25/20 at 11:26 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:33 am to ChineseBandit58
Bandit, you must remember that this is NOT a judicial proceeding and that (while there are some analogies) it is NOT a criminal prosecution.
The arguments we have been hearing for three days and WILL be hearing for another three days are NOT “evidence.”. They are each side’s summaries of the hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence already “admitted“ in the House.
There is an underlying assumption that each side will highlight that portion of the House record which best serves its own purposes. The Senators are presumed to have access to the entire record. Incidentally, reliance upon the House record is one reason that the unfair Dem practices in the House were so problematic.
The whole “witness” issue in the Senate thus has two branches.
The first ties to the Dems. They had every chance to call witnesses in the House, so it seems reasonable to limit them in the Senate to only witnesses or testimony which (for whatever reason) was not available to them during House proceedings.
The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.
Thus, two questions arise. First, do they even NEED witnesses? Davy addressed that question quite well. The second question is whether the less-zealous-for-Trump Senators are willing to hear from witnesses of questionable direct relevance.
In a real legal proceeding, the single question would be whether Trump had objective evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens when he requested help from Ukraine, but of course this is not a legal proceeding. Set that aside for a moment.
If we use that standard, I think ALL GOP Senators would vote in favor of testimony from a new witness who had been suppressed by the Dems but who provided Trump a pre-Zelensky-call briefing about Biden wrongdoing. However the Bidens themselves have nothing to add on that point. Thus, there is a dispute among the GOP as whether to allow their testimony.
The arguments we have been hearing for three days and WILL be hearing for another three days are NOT “evidence.”. They are each side’s summaries of the hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence already “admitted“ in the House.
There is an underlying assumption that each side will highlight that portion of the House record which best serves its own purposes. The Senators are presumed to have access to the entire record. Incidentally, reliance upon the House record is one reason that the unfair Dem practices in the House were so problematic.
The whole “witness” issue in the Senate thus has two branches.
The first ties to the Dems. They had every chance to call witnesses in the House, so it seems reasonable to limit them in the Senate to only witnesses or testimony which (for whatever reason) was not available to them during House proceedings.
The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.
Thus, two questions arise. First, do they even NEED witnesses? Davy addressed that question quite well. The second question is whether the less-zealous-for-Trump Senators are willing to hear from witnesses of questionable direct relevance.
In a real legal proceeding, the single question would be whether Trump had objective evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens when he requested help from Ukraine, but of course this is not a legal proceeding. Set that aside for a moment.
If we use that standard, I think ALL GOP Senators would vote in favor of testimony from a new witness who had been suppressed by the Dems but who provided Trump a pre-Zelensky-call briefing about Biden wrongdoing. However the Bidens themselves have nothing to add on that point. Thus, there is a dispute among the GOP as whether to allow their testimony.
This post was edited on 1/25/20 at 11:47 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:42 am to Wednesday
quote:Been thinking this since the first time someone started mentioning the possibility of calling him.
A witness you’ve never interviewed before is a bad idea. You think Hunter Biden cares if he’s under oath?
You can always spot the “experts” who have never tried a lawsuit.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 11:59 am to AggieHank86
Good write-up, Hank.
What the hell are we gonna do with ourselves after all this is over with!?
What the hell are we gonna do with ourselves after all this is over with!?
Posted on 1/25/20 at 12:03 pm to AggieHank86
FIRST - thank you very much for your response - you have given me exactly the type response I was begging for - have not even read it all yet - but regardless
THANK YOU =
Totally agree - which is why I am asking my questions based on FAIRNESS rather than LEGALITY - My basic assumption of good legal law is that it is based on FAIRNESS as best as the English language is able to define such a nebulous concept. Many legal processes result in unfair outcomes - and I can live with that as long as the circumstances are so isolated as to be considered 'that's life."
Since each house in an IMPEACHMENT is given 'sole power" to conduct its proceedings - and the HoR has interpreted that to mean they do not need to adhere to universally accepted concept of DUE PROCESS, that the SENATE should be able to insert their OWN version of FAIRNESS to try and undo the "due process" concept that everyone will individually agree is FAIR.
Completely agree.
You have encapsulated the gist of my question very aptly right there.
Here is where my question arises that I have been very inept at presenting.
I believe that BEFORE any question about "witnesses" should be taken (and by that I mean witness that add to the record already presented) the DEFENSE should be able to call witnesses the directly REBUT statements made in the articles of impeachment. WITHOUT a 'reciprocity-witness that adds to the indictment in unrelated area - or even to bolster the argument presented.
NOW - the prosecution should be allowed to REBUT that first 'rebuttal' but only relative to the issue raised by the defense - They should not be allowed to ADD to the prosecution case in this stage.
That process should await the conclusion of the DEFENSE rebuttal phase.
After a full-throated REBUTTAL from the defense - then then questioning by the senators - THEN and only then should consideration of ADDITIONAL witnessed be considered.
I am content with your analysis above - I want to emphasize that I am only interested in the phase we are in right now - an ability to call for the defense specific REBUTTAL witness to the case included in their written articles.
At this point - I think my question is moot - I raised it well before today.
I have now watched the Defense team UTTERLY DESTROY the entire IMPEACHMENT fiasco in only 2 short hours.
Further discussion is now just theoretical on my part -
THANK YOU AGAIN for a thorough answer to my question - much better than I deserved.
THANK YOU =
quote:
his is NOT a judicial proceeding and that (while there are some analogies) it is NOT a criminal prosecution.
Totally agree - which is why I am asking my questions based on FAIRNESS rather than LEGALITY - My basic assumption of good legal law is that it is based on FAIRNESS as best as the English language is able to define such a nebulous concept. Many legal processes result in unfair outcomes - and I can live with that as long as the circumstances are so isolated as to be considered 'that's life."
Since each house in an IMPEACHMENT is given 'sole power" to conduct its proceedings - and the HoR has interpreted that to mean they do not need to adhere to universally accepted concept of DUE PROCESS, that the SENATE should be able to insert their OWN version of FAIRNESS to try and undo the "due process" concept that everyone will individually agree is FAIR.
quote:
The arguments we have been hearing for three days and WILL be hearing for another three days are NOT “evidence.”. They are each side’s summaries of the hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence already “admitted“ in the House.
Completely agree.
quote:
The whole “witness” issue in the Senate thus has two branches.
The first ties to the Dems. They had every chance to call witnesses in the House, so it seems reasonable to limit them in the Senate to only witnesses or testimony which (for whatever reason) available to them during House proceedings.
The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.
You have encapsulated the gist of my question very aptly right there.
quote:
Thus, two questions arise. First, do they even NEED witnesses? Davy addressed that question quite well.
Here is where my question arises that I have been very inept at presenting.
I believe that BEFORE any question about "witnesses" should be taken (and by that I mean witness that add to the record already presented) the DEFENSE should be able to call witnesses the directly REBUT statements made in the articles of impeachment. WITHOUT a 'reciprocity-witness that adds to the indictment in unrelated area - or even to bolster the argument presented.
NOW - the prosecution should be allowed to REBUT that first 'rebuttal' but only relative to the issue raised by the defense - They should not be allowed to ADD to the prosecution case in this stage.
quote:
The second question is whether the less-zealous-for-Trump Senators are willing to hear from witnesses of questionable direct relevance.
That process should await the conclusion of the DEFENSE rebuttal phase.
After a full-throated REBUTTAL from the defense - then then questioning by the senators - THEN and only then should consideration of ADDITIONAL witnessed be considered.
quote:
In a real legal proceeding, the single question would be whether Trump had objective evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens when he requested help from Ukraine, but of course this is not a legal proceeding. Set that aside for a moment.
If we use that standard, I think ALL GOP Senators would vote in favor of testimony from a new witness who had been suppressed by the Dems but who provided Trump a pre-Zelensky-call briefing about Biden wrongdoing. However the Bidens themselves have nothing to add on that point. Thus, there is a dispute among the GOP as whether to allow their testimony.
I am content with your analysis above - I want to emphasize that I am only interested in the phase we are in right now - an ability to call for the defense specific REBUTTAL witness to the case included in their written articles.
At this point - I think my question is moot - I raised it well before today.
I have now watched the Defense team UTTERLY DESTROY the entire IMPEACHMENT fiasco in only 2 short hours.
Further discussion is now just theoretical on my part -
THANK YOU AGAIN for a thorough answer to my question - much better than I deserved.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 12:04 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Sounds like you think this entire miscarriage of justice is OK because dems ultimately don't have the numbers to make it stick in the end. Super.
I’m not on anyone’s team bub. I think this impeachment is a massive waste of time, money & energy. I haven’t watched a single frame of the broadcasts or read a single article on the matter. I only know what I know about it from this board. Super.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 12:05 pm to davyjones
quote:Go back to arguing over childish tweets, I suppose.
What the hell are we gonna do with ourselves after all this is over with!?
Posted on 1/25/20 at 12:06 pm to AggieHank86
I guess so. Severe overanalysis of tweets, from all sides.Posted on 1/25/20 at 12:12 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:Not at all.
THANK YOU AGAIN for a thorough answer to my question - much better than I deserved.
You and I have disagreed on occasion, but you are a good poster and never disingenuous. I am glad I was able to help..
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News