TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards: WITNESSES

This is topic WITNESSES in forum Civil Debate - Politics and Other Hot Button Topics at TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.thecatsdomain.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=002446

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-30-2020, 01:42 PM:

Any reason why witnesses should not be allowed to testify in the Senate impeachment trial?

Posted by handycat (Member # 2323) on 01-30-2020, 04:52 PM:

It matters not a whit to the eventual outcome. The President, no matter what he may or may not have done, will be acquitted. The vote will be primarily down party lines, a few exceptions but not near enough to change the predetermined outcome. Neither side cares about what is fair

IMO, no witnesses. Let the sideshow end.

[ 01-30-2020, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: handycat ]

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 01-30-2020, 09:12 PM:

I am not taking the bait.

Posted by ukcatfannfl (Member # 1425) on 01-30-2020, 09:59 PM:

Very smart Norm

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 02:28 AM:

hc:

quote:
The President, no matter what he may or may not have done, will be acquitted.

That's why witnesses are important...to prove just that.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 01-31-2020, 04:52 AM:

The biggest problem I see with calling witnesses is the fact that the House managers say there is enough info already to make their case a strong one. Evidently there isn't or they wouldn't want witnesses called. If their case is as strong as they say it is then witnesses could hurt them more than it could help them.
THe other problem with calling witnesses is, all of the people that SHOULD be called as witnesses WON'T! The whistle blower should be a witness. He/She is the reason this so called impeachable offense got started!

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 09:41 AM:

mh:

quote:
The biggest problem I see with calling witnesses is the fact that the House managers say there is enough info already to make their case a strong one. Evidently there isn't or they wouldn't want witnesses called.

The Senate says this evidence is second-hand, he said-she said stuff...nothing directly tied to the President.

Now Bolton (the guy in the front row with his hand up), a direct link and witness to the events in question, has come forward willing to testify....so, what's the problem?

quote:
THe other problem with calling witnesses is, all of the people that SHOULD be called as witnesses WON'T! The whistle blower should be a witness. He/She is the reason this so called impeachable offense got started!

Another witness that probably won't be called is the Inspector General...he declared the whistle blower complaint to be "credible and urgent".

Posted by Jarcat (Member # 95) on 01-31-2020, 02:45 PM:

Didn't the "Demoncrats" state going into this sham that they had an iron-clad case against Trump with irrefutable evidence. If that's true why do they need more witnesses to make their case.?

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 03:20 PM:

Jarcat:

quote:
Didn't the "Demoncrats" state going into this sham that they had an iron-clad case against Trump with irrefutable evidence. If that's true why do they need more witnesses to make their case.?

Because the Senate dismissed the "irrefutable evidence" on the grounds that it is basically hear-say...no direct ties to the President.

Bolton is someone who was there...in the room...taking notes, as he always does. He is willing to tell us, under oath, what went on in his presence.

Something wrong with that?

[ 01-31-2020, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: MountainMafia ]

Posted by EnterpriseCat (Member # 2881) on 01-31-2020, 05:58 PM:

The House could have called witnesses, such as Bolton, but chose not to do so. The Senate is under no obligation to call witnesses. Swampers from both sides are demanding witnesses because they don’t like Trump. President Trump is acquitted. Let’s move on.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 06:10 PM:

Acquittal does not mean innocence.

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 01-31-2020, 07:59 PM:

Yawn.

Posted by MEL (Member # 141) on 01-31-2020, 08:02 PM:

Doesn't mean guilty either !!!

Why didn't Bolton testify during the House inquiry "UNDER OATH" ??? Oh yeah maybe just maybe … he is trying to sell a book now.

MEL

[ 01-31-2020, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: MEL ]

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 09:34 PM:

This is the best post of the day-simply because it sums up this entire thread in one sentence.

The President, no matter what he may or may not have done, will be acquitted.

Posted by handycat (Member # 2323) on 01-31-2020, 09:51 PM:

quote:
This is the best post of the day-simply because it sums up this entire thread in one sentence.

The President, no matter what he may or may not have done, will be acquitted.

Glad I”m best at something! Do I get a prize?

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 01-31-2020, 10:07 PM:

You can come and get my old 97 S10 and drive it for a week, JF you replace the Heat/Air blower motor while you have it.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 01-31-2020, 10:10 PM:

WOW! you said that, hc? Just kidd'n...I knowed it wuz you the minute you ask for something [Razz]

Posted by Jarcat (Member # 95) on 02-01-2020, 09:19 AM:

Whether Trump did or did not do all these spurious allegations isn't the issue here. None of these charges are impeachable offenses.

To me the bottom line is:

"You don't impeach a president just because you hate him"!

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-01-2020, 11:45 AM:

Jarcat:

quote:
"You don't impeach a president just because you hate him"!

Of course not...you impeach a president when he/she abuses and corrupts the privilege and power of the presidency.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 02-01-2020, 02:12 PM:

Funny how the House managers were in such a hurry to make their case that they didn't get all of the info to make their case. THe house Managers had a subpoena for Bolten but didn't want to wait for the Judicial release in order to question him.
Once they had their (so called) articles of Impeachment, they sat on them rather than sending them to the Senate in hopes of finding more evidence to build their case! In a nut shell, If the House would've taken their time to make their case they may have had more of a case!

Knowing the Democratic party, This isn't the last we'll hear of impeachment!

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 02-01-2020, 11:24 PM:

I hope this results in not only a Trump re-election, but a thorough cleaning of congress. Vote the bums out.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 02-02-2020, 12:04 AM:

I'm with you, Tip!

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-02-2020, 09:04 AM:

mh:

quote:
Funny how the House managers were in such a hurry to make their case that they didn't get all of the info to make their case. THe house Managers had a subpoena for Bolten but didn't want to wait for the Judicial release in order to question him.

Ok...but the Senate didn't have to wait...Bolton volunteered

quote:
In a nut shell, If the House would've taken their time to make their case they may have had more of a case!

Same could be said about the senate.

Posted by EnterpriseCat (Member # 2881) on 02-02-2020, 04:37 PM:

The senate was the jury, not the prosecutors. They weren’t required to gather evidence, just make a decision on the evidence that was presented. It was the House’s responsibility to gather the evidence and they decided to rush this farce through and it cost them.

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 02-02-2020, 05:24 PM:

I hope it costs them a lot more in November. The American people are not stupid, and I fully expect the GOP will keep the presidency and the senate, and retake the house. The funniest thing I saw in this farce, was Nadler beating Schiff to the microphone when the Chief Justice asked if the house (mis)managers had any final word. "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"

[ 02-02-2020, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Old Norm ]

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-02-2020, 08:45 PM:

EC.

quote:
It was the House’s responsibility to gather the evidence

That's true. The way they do this is through witnesses and documents...Trump obstructed congress by refusing to provide any at all, even ignoring legally issued subpoenas.

Norm:

quote:
I hope it costs them a lot more in November. The American people are not stupid, and I fully expect the GOP will keep the presidency and the senate, and retake the house.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that, Norm. Over 75% of Americans, including a plurality of republicans, wanted to hear from witnesses.

Posted by MEL (Member # 141) on 02-03-2020, 01:07 PM:

MM … I haven't talked to one person that wants to hear anything from witnesses … they are ready for this farce to be over and done with !!! They have all told me the witch hunt started when Trump started running for office and hasn't stopped (actually got worse) since he won the election. When one thing doesn't work out for the libs then they start with something else yet nothing sticks !!!

Also "who" did the survey you are talking about (over 75% of the American people) ??? Always look to who put on the survey to see how accurate it is !!! Somehow almost every survey or poll always goes to what the people putting it on want to hear !!!

MEL

Posted by rlt4uk (Member # 3194) on 02-03-2020, 04:16 PM:

The House should have called these whiteness when they had their chance. The Do nothing Demo-crits want their cake and they want to eat it to.

Posted by rlt4uk (Member # 3194) on 02-03-2020, 04:17 PM:

P.S. TRUMP 2020!!! Keep America Great!!!

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-03-2020, 06:39 PM:

MEL:

quote:
MM … I haven't talked to one person that wants to hear anything from witnesses

Maybe those people are in the other 25%.

75%

Many more links if you want to look.

rlt4uk:

quote:
The House should have called these whiteness when they had their chance. The Do nothing Demo-crits want their cake and they want to eat it to.

Bolton did not volunteer to testify until after the HOR had concluded their investigation.

NEW EVIDENCE, particularly first-hand, eye-witness accounts, can not be excluded if this "witch hunt"/"farce" is to be exposed and confirmed. Isn't that what you want?

"It's not my job" is no excuse for not doing your job.

Posted by handycat (Member # 2323) on 02-03-2020, 06:58 PM:

Quote by President Trump.

The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. ... Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?

One thing for sure, Donald Trump knows his base. IMO, there is nothing he can do that will change their opinion of him.

M&M, I’m really not being critical of your arguments but of all available presidential candidates, who would you rather have than Donald Trump?

I think it’s time to let this go and let the election decide it.

Posted by PaulCat (Member # 513) on 02-03-2020, 08:43 PM:

According to "the polls", Hillary was supposed to beat Trump easily a few years ago. Polls are about as useful as a screen door on the side of a submarine.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-03-2020, 08:49 PM:

hc:

quote:
IMO, there is nothing he can do that will change their opinion of him.

I agree 100%...I have never seen anything like it.

quote:
M&M, I’m really not being critical of your arguments but of all available presidential candidates, who would you rather have than Donald Trump?

Honestly, I don't know, I haven't watched the first minute of the Dem debates...gonna see what the Dems come up with and go from there.

quote:

I think it’s time to let this go and let the election decide it.

With the Senate voting for no witnesses that's basically where we are.

quote:
M&M, I’m really not being critical of your arguments

Wouldn't bother me none if you wuz, hc...man got a right to speak his mind...and an obligation to be respectful when he does...far as I know, you check all those boxes, hc.

Posted by MEL (Member # 141) on 02-03-2020, 09:29 PM:

I have a question … did anyone on this site or anyone on this site know of anyone who participated in the Quinnipiac pole ??? Pole do not ask everyone and since then don't many times they ask people in certain areas (depending on the pollsters) they can even ask the people they want answers from. I have a very hard time believing 75% of "ALL" Americans have said they want to hear the witnesses !!! Oh I believe the people running the polls have an agenda just like the libs / dems have had all along !!! We also know who runs mass media sites !!! Following social media tends to make me believe it is the younger generations that are answering these polls and as we all know colleges and universities are teaching liberalism more than they are teaching education these days … I run into it everyday at work where the college kids / workers don't know anything about anything other than what their professors tell them !!! Sheep being led to the slaughter IMHO !!! They think everything is going to be "Free" when a liberal gets elected but not a one of them can tell me who is going to pay the bills for all the free stuff !!!

MEL

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-04-2020, 05:08 PM:

MEL:

quote:
I have a very hard time believing 75% of "ALL" Americans have said they want to hear the witnesses !!!

I'm surprised it's not higher.

[ 02-04-2020, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: MountainMafia ]

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 02-04-2020, 08:25 PM:

^^^^^^^Truth^^^^^

Some of us wanted to hear Schiff go before the White House attorneys. He'd probably lie then too, though!

Posted by CatFanInYankeeville (Member # 2025) on 02-06-2020, 06:39 PM:

Because the trial should have been held in the House. Not in the Senate. Not the job of the Senate to hear witnesses, they're basically the jury in an impeachment. The House should have, and could have, called every witness from here to Mongolia, but instead opted to rush things through because they had a rock-solid case that, for some reason, crazy Nancy wanted to hold onto for a while before moving to the Senate. The House Dems screwed themselves on purpose, so they could all point at the Senate and cry about how unfair they are.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 02-06-2020, 07:40 PM:

Crazy Nancy was hoping above all hope that something else would be uncovered between the time they rushed the impeachment through the house until the time that it was given to the Senate.
She already had been told that if she didn't drop the charges to the Senate by a certain time that all of those charges were null and void.

SHe dropped the charges in the Senates lap hoping above all hope that they'd be suckered into doing the job of the house for them.

McConnell never allowed the Senate to do the Houses' job by calling more witnesses knowing full well what the out come was going to be!

Don't think that the Dems are through trying to take DJT down. If they don't take him down, they don't have confidence they have a candidate running for Prez that can defeat him!

Gallop polls show that the Dem Party is now weaker in confidence than it did before they did when Pelosi announced Impeachment charges,

GOP confidence in DJT is 8 points stronger than it was when those charges were announced!

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 02-06-2020, 07:48 PM:

Suddenly it's discovered that even Romney had a relative receiving funds from the Ukraine Govt along with Pelosi, and Biden

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-07-2020, 07:52 AM:

I get the "technical" argument that it was not the Senate's "job" to call witnesses. But they do have a responsibility and duty to conduct some semblance of a fair trial.

I never thought for a minute that Trump would be convicted...not a chance. I also didn't think the Senate would brazenly ignore and refuse to hear first-hand, eye-witness accounts...the very kind of evidence the Senate told the HOR they wanted.

It's not about what's right any more, it's about winning...but it does matter how you go about it.

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 02-07-2020, 09:34 AM:

MM, I just don't understand why you keep obsessing about the senate republicans not conducting a "fair" trial, but never a word about the house democrats and their "fair trial", not even allowing the president's people into the basement room, where they were rehearsing and preparing their "witnesses". When they did have the republicans in the hearing, their only witness was Jonathan Turley, who is a democrat, and he was only called on one time. Adam Schiff would not allow certain questions and had complete control over who the republicans could call on. Now you want to preach to us about what is right and wrong? I have never in my life witnessed anything more unfair and wrong than that farce was.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-07-2020, 10:11 AM:

Sounds like "Trumpsplaining" Norm.

LINK

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 02-07-2020, 10:31 AM:

Sounds like neither you nor FactCheck.org watched the proceedings on TV. Did you not hear Schiff's version of the phone call? Did you not hear Schiff's refusal to allow certain questions? I know. I know. He was "protecting the whistleblower". That is BS and you know it. He was not a whistleblower. He was a leaker that worked in the CIA and had ZERO first hand knowledge. I also know I am wasting my time, and yours. Your mind is made up, as is mine. Thus ends my end of this conversation.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-07-2020, 10:50 AM:

Norm:

quote:
He was a leaker that worked in the CIA and had ZERO first hand knowledge.

So, "first hand knowledge" is important in establishing ones credibility?