- 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
Sorry about this - but I have never understood the 'witnesses' question.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:13 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:13 am
This is an impeachment of Donald J. Trump - up to this point, NOT ONE WITNESS has ever been produced ON THE RECORD to rebut ANY item in the INDICTMENT!!
I cannot accept the situation where the entire gears of the FEDERAL GOVT would impose a restriction on the DEFENSE that required them to remain SILENT and not allowed to REBUT any declaration of "fact" as represented in the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT" without giving the PROSECUTOR full reign to ADD TO THEIR CASE.
This would NEVER end in a fair opportunity to REBUT the charges.
This would require that the DEFENSE may only use statement from the PROSECUTION witnesses as presented by the PROSECUTION.
I am begging for someone to clear up this cognitive dissonance I am experiecning - this to me is equivalent of the Salem Witch Trial 'dunking' test for guilt.
what am I missing??
How else can the DEFENSE rebut the array of WITNESSes who have already set the basis of TRUTH in the Articles??
I have never been more confused about a FAIRNESS issue than I am now.
True - I am old and suffering memory lapses - but I have net been aware of any loss analytical power given a set of cohesive data. Am I losing that capacity also>>
If that be true I am willing to extract myself from this board and await what fate has in store for me.
I cannot accept the situation where the entire gears of the FEDERAL GOVT would impose a restriction on the DEFENSE that required them to remain SILENT and not allowed to REBUT any declaration of "fact" as represented in the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT" without giving the PROSECUTOR full reign to ADD TO THEIR CASE.
This would NEVER end in a fair opportunity to REBUT the charges.
This would require that the DEFENSE may only use statement from the PROSECUTION witnesses as presented by the PROSECUTION.
I am begging for someone to clear up this cognitive dissonance I am experiecning - this to me is equivalent of the Salem Witch Trial 'dunking' test for guilt.
what am I missing??
How else can the DEFENSE rebut the array of WITNESSes who have already set the basis of TRUTH in the Articles??
I have never been more confused about a FAIRNESS issue than I am now.
True - I am old and suffering memory lapses - but I have net been aware of any loss analytical power given a set of cohesive data. Am I losing that capacity also>>
If that be true I am willing to extract myself from this board and await what fate has in store for me.
12
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:15 am to ChineseBandit58
Is there any real, credible concern that he’ll be removed? I thought this was all a pantomime and the R majority was a lock?
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:21 am to cwill
Only way he has a small chance of being removed is if they call witnesses and they actually learn something new, but if they allow witnesses the republicans will call Hunter Biden. At that point all the corruption Trump was investigating will come to light and it’ll be hard to say it wasn’t in the best interest of the American people.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:21 am to ChineseBandit58
Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the "prosecution" to convincingly prove its case, there is a prominent school of thought in legal strategizing that if it's abundantly clear that the case was not proven.....the defendant is wise to rest having called no witnesses. Let the woeful prosecution case be your best defense.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:22 am to ChineseBandit58
It's clearly a railroad job and unfortunately there's a willfully compliant media to see that this perversion of Justice is enacted, even though by the grace of God it will fail, the framework to succeed with a different Congressional make up, even a slightly different make up, has been put in place.
I don't ever see the Republicans using this blue print as I expect more from those whom I and like minded people vote for with them BUT the Dems don't play by moral rules, unless you consider the unmitigated pursuit of power "moral" because that's all this is about.
Maybe next time we as a nation won't screw around in mid term elections so cavalierly...for a little while at least. Or even better, maybe the Republicans won't screw around when they have both Chambers of Congress like they did this last opportunity.
I don't ever see the Republicans using this blue print as I expect more from those whom I and like minded people vote for with them BUT the Dems don't play by moral rules, unless you consider the unmitigated pursuit of power "moral" because that's all this is about.
Maybe next time we as a nation won't screw around in mid term elections so cavalierly...for a little while at least. Or even better, maybe the Republicans won't screw around when they have both Chambers of Congress like they did this last opportunity.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:38 am to ChineseBandit58
If this was a real trial, this is the time that the defense would ask for a directed verdict from the judge because the prosecution failed to present a case. And the judge would shut this down.
While I’d love to bring the whole Democrat Deep State, Schiff, MSM conspiracy to life, this is not necessary. Shut this crappiest peach mint down, and let the Senate start investigating Biden and this will all out.
While I’d love to bring the whole Democrat Deep State, Schiff, MSM conspiracy to life, this is not necessary. Shut this crappiest peach mint down, and let the Senate start investigating Biden and this will all out.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:39 am to davyjones
quote:
Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the "prosecution" to convincingly prove its case, there is a prominent school of thought in legal strategizing that if it's abundantly clear that the case was not proven.....the defendant is wise to rest having called no witnesses. Let the woeful prosecution case be your best defense.
This is absolutely the best play in a courtroom, however this isn’t a courtroom. It’s a media charade. Not enough of the American people are smart enough to understand how our judicial system works and the longer this plays out the worse it will appear for the president. Sort of damned if you do damned if you don’t.
It’s why they’ve started with the “coverup” threat. To paint Republicans in a corner. If they play it like you should in court you will hear the media onslaught of a coverup by the entire Republican Party and the unveiling of the next scandal will commence.
Purely treasonous behavior I never thought would ever be tolerated in this country, yet here we all are witnessing it.
This post was edited on 1/25/20 at 8:41 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:40 am to ChineseBandit58
You’re not a fan of hearsay baw? Cmon!
Posted on 1/25/20 at 8:58 am to ChineseBandit58
I’ve vacillated about whether witnesses are a good idea.
A witness you’ve never interviewed before is a bad idea. You think Hunter Biden cares if he’s under oath? The guy is a dirtbag. I think he should testify before the senate and in public, but in a different context.
I do agree with you tho that there should be rebuttal witnesses. I thinK Rudy should testify about why he was engaged; and what evidence he found. I also think the people Rudy took sworn statements from should testify. They’re already locked in.
A witness you’ve never interviewed before is a bad idea. You think Hunter Biden cares if he’s under oath? The guy is a dirtbag. I think he should testify before the senate and in public, but in a different context.
I do agree with you tho that there should be rebuttal witnesses. I thinK Rudy should testify about why he was engaged; and what evidence he found. I also think the people Rudy took sworn statements from should testify. They’re already locked in.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:01 am to cwill
quote:It is a lock after Nadless the Waddler and Pencil Neck lied and each insulted the Republicans. Collins and Murkowski are on record as being totally offended by those 2.
Is there any real, credible concern that he’ll be removed? I thought this was all a pantomime and the R majority was a lock?
The DimProgFilth shot themselves in the foot yet again and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:03 am to Mohican
Great points. Yes, this is peculiar from traditional courtroom trial, especially in terms of evidentiary matters. If the same evidentiary scrutiny as is used in criminal trials was employed here, Schiff et al would have only needed a couple of hours to present what was left of their case. Lol
But the biggest distinction is, as you mentioned, the press aspect and its related affect on the other court....court of public opinion. Very, very tricky circumstances. Ideally, the Trump team very effectively yet somewhat succinctly addresses the handful of most prominent claims by Schiff et al, and perhaps while addressing the "obstruction" count they could explain the necessity of preserving executive privilege for posterity's sake. Then artfully declare that because the President will be compelled to assert privilege in this Senate trial, resulting in extremely low likelihood that Dems will get any witnesses actually in a witness chair, Trump will honorably forego seekig his own witnesses in the name of fairness. Didn't ever need them anyway, but show the public willingness of restraint and professionalism.
But the biggest distinction is, as you mentioned, the press aspect and its related affect on the other court....court of public opinion. Very, very tricky circumstances. Ideally, the Trump team very effectively yet somewhat succinctly addresses the handful of most prominent claims by Schiff et al, and perhaps while addressing the "obstruction" count they could explain the necessity of preserving executive privilege for posterity's sake. Then artfully declare that because the President will be compelled to assert privilege in this Senate trial, resulting in extremely low likelihood that Dems will get any witnesses actually in a witness chair, Trump will honorably forego seekig his own witnesses in the name of fairness. Didn't ever need them anyway, but show the public willingness of restraint and professionalism.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:03 am to ChineseBandit58
I suspect "innocent until proven guilty" will be mentioned a few times.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:04 am to Sidicous
quote:
The DimProgFilth shot themselves in the foot yet again and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
They are vile and disgusting to the point that normal people cannot understand how their minds work. They think they are just killing it.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:04 am to ChineseBandit58
Just because they don't call a Witness, don't mean they can't put the facts/information that said Witness's offer, into the Record, CB. Schiff offers (speculative/hearsay) ad infinitm.
They should introduce Rudy's investigatory facts into that Public Record. Graham has already said that a comprehensive Investigation will be undertaken in a Senate Committee...as soon as this Partisan Impeachment witchhunt ends.
This is going to be like the Clemson game...rocky start...but after adjustments...bring the hammer.
They should introduce Rudy's investigatory facts into that Public Record. Graham has already said that a comprehensive Investigation will be undertaken in a Senate Committee...as soon as this Partisan Impeachment witchhunt ends.
This is going to be like the Clemson game...rocky start...but after adjustments...bring the hammer.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:11 am to RCDfan1950
I’d say it’s more like a guy blocking a punt and running it back for a TD, when everyone on the planet could see he was 2 yards offsides when the ball was snapped.
He thinks he made a great play, when everyone watching is shaking their heads at the idiot doing the victory dance in the end zone.
He thinks he made a great play, when everyone watching is shaking their heads at the idiot doing the victory dance in the end zone.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:19 am to davyjones
quote:
Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the "prosecution" to convincingly prove its case, there is a prominent school of thought in legal strategizing that if it's abundantly clear that the case was not proven.....the defendant is wise to rest having called no witnesses. Let the woeful prosecution case be your best defense.
TOTALLY agree - In fact I hav advocated this very thing - but I want the record to show more than "dismissed" --- I would want it dismissed with prejudice - declaring it to be a seditious conspiracy,
MY concern is about what happens if they vote to ALLOW witnesses - I think that there is NO NEED for that vote - that the DEFENSE has an INHERENT right to REBUT the sworn testimony with their OWN witnesses who can prove it false.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:20 am to ChineseBandit58
He can have witnesses if the Senate wants to hear them. This is not a criminal or civil trial but essentially a hearing based on House information.
If any chance existed of an actual removal, rebuttal witnesses would be lined up all the way down the hall.
If any chance existed of an actual removal, rebuttal witnesses would be lined up all the way down the hall.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:26 am to ChineseBandit58
It's worse than that, though. The Dems want to call witnesses that they did not call in the House proceeding and deny witnesses for the President's defense.
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:31 am to ChineseBandit58
It's strange situation....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.
Just have to be careful not to end up in a situation wherein witnesses are allowed, Dems call theirs but no testimony results due to executive privilege, yet Trump calls his and does get testimony because nothing can legally block it. Would probably look like a railroad job between Trump and Senate majority, even though it was legally on the up and up. Wouldn't be presented like that to the general public though, as we're aware.
Just have to be careful not to end up in a situation wherein witnesses are allowed, Dems call theirs but no testimony results due to executive privilege, yet Trump calls his and does get testimony because nothing can legally block it. Would probably look like a railroad job between Trump and Senate majority, even though it was legally on the up and up. Wouldn't be presented like that to the general public though, as we're aware.
This post was edited on 1/25/20 at 9:33 am
Posted on 1/25/20 at 9:53 am to ChineseBandit58
I would stick to “you’ve already called/set your prosecution witness list” so let’s call some back....Vindemen, Sondeland, Yovanovitch, etc. Then the defense should call the whistleblower only. And based on how he goes, call Schiff to prove their conspiracy. After that, just rest the case and let the Biden’s go down after the fact in Senate hearings.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News