Jump to content

Impeachment Hearings


MigL

Recommended Posts

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?

The media outlet with the largest viewership/highest ratings in the US is calling the Dems request for "additional" witnesses "desperate". Nobody on FOX News pointed out the hypocrisy of refusing to turn over evidence and then claiming the Dems had no evidence. Their consensus is this whole thing is a non-starter because it's just an attempt to overthrow the 2016 election. I've heard this phrase every week for the last several months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you think they will vote to have no witnesses?

My opinion is there is a 50% chance 4 GOP senators will want more witnesses and documents.  IF that happens, then the hearings get stretched out beyond the State of the Union address on Tuesday Feb. 4, just 8 days away.   Dems would like to run out that clock.   That will look bad for Trump.  There could always be a tipping point before election day, like what happened to Nixon.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

My opinion is there is a 50% chance 4 GOP senators will want more witnesses and documents.  IF that happens, then the hearings get stretched out beyond the State of the Union address.  Dems would like to run out the clock.   That will look bad for Trump.  There could always be a tipping point before election day, like what happened to Nixon.

If at the end of the day, there are only 4 GOP senators, then 49 other senators have no interest in upholding democracy, but for authoritarianism and little else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

 

I concur with your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think they will vote to have some. They will likely want to hear from Bolton, and that could open it right up.

Who will vote that way? We've got a maybe from Mitt Romney of Utah. We've got a sort of maybe kinda if you squint and tilt your head sideways from Maine Sentator Susan Collins, but that's it... 2 more needed.

I'd love to be wrong on this. Don't get me wrong, but I'm not seeing the other 2 still needed, and TBH I'm barely seeing the first 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

 

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?

YES i concur.But the trump people have been so successful convicting the democrats with conspiracy theories, I don't expect to see any reasonable evidence from them.

Edited by moth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

Who will vote that way? We've got a maybe from Mitt Romney of Utah. We've got a sort of maybe kinda if you squint and tilt your head sideways from Maine Sentator Susan Collins, but that's it... 2 more needed.

I'd love to be wrong on this. Don't get me wrong, but I'm not seeing the other 2 still needed, and TBH I'm barely seeing the first 2.

From what I've been reading the general consensus among Republicans is that no matter what happens during the trial, Trump will not be removed from office. Therefore additional evidence, testimony, or time will only serve as a negative influence on the Republican Party. Better to end it as soon as possible.

The only Republicans who will vote for witnesses are those who believe it will help their future prospects. Very few of them exist. No one will change their mind due to fairness, patriotism, the greater good, sense of duty, etc.

I don't foresee witnesses being called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

From what I've been reading the general consensus among Republicans is that no matter what happens during the trial, Trump will not be removed from office. Therefore additional evidence, testimony, or time will only serve as a negative influence on the Republican Party. Better to end it as soon as possible.

Agreed. In fact, who knows what witnesses will share. It could paint them into a corner. Better to hear or see no reviled than met it get revealed and magnify the difficulty of ignoring it. 

 

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The only Republicans who will vote for witnesses are those who believe it will help their future prospects. Very few of them exist. No one will change their mind due to fairness, patriotism, the greater good, sense of duty, etc.

There’s no reward in our system today for moderation or fairness. It’s a base only play. Democrats may applaud Susan Collins for voting for witnesses, but they’d never vote for her in the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Who will vote that way? We've got a maybe from Mitt Romney of Utah. We've got a sort of maybe kinda if you squint and tilt your head sideways from Maine Sentator Susan Collins, but that's it... 2 more needed.

I'd love to be wrong on this. Don't get me wrong, but I'm not seeing the other 2 still needed, and TBH I'm barely seeing the first 2.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/romney-increasingly-likely-that-enough-republicans-will-support-calling-witnesses-at-trumps-impeachment-trial-2020-01-27

‘It’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton. I’ve spoken with others who’ve opined upon this as well.’ Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I read that, too. Neither of us know which ones, though. Until we do, it’s an empty promise and my question remains unanswered. 

I'm not counting on finding an extra couple beyond Romney and Collins. I just think it will depend on the level of doubt with regard to Bolton.

If they are convinced he will make a clear statement against Trump, I think many will want to hear what he has to say under oath and while being questioned.

I know I would, though without these latest leaks I would not blame the GOP Senators for being closed to witnesses given the current weakness of the case otherwise (politics aside)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not counting on finding an extra couple beyond Romney and Collins.

From FiveThirtyEight a few minutes ago:

“Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania indicated to colleagues that he was open to calling witnesses if Republicans could arrange a witness like John R. Bolton and one more friendly to the president.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there will be witnesses.

If they don't allow for witnesses, and J Bolton's book makes all the schemes and unethical behaviour of this administration public, voters will associate the cover-up with the senators also and possibly punish them at re-election. They are all about protecting their a*ses, and throwing others under the bus ( most of them anyway ).
But they still won't remove D Trump from the Presidency, witnesses or no witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m more optimistic now than before, but won’t believe it until I see it.

Also, anyone in the GOP who votes for witnesses will get unloaded on by Trump. He’ll sick his mindless hounds... erm, bots on anyone who doesn’t show 100% fealty and loyalty.  He’ll put their heads on Twitter spikes for all to see and will keep doing so until they get primary’d. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m more optimistic now than before, but won’t believe it until I see it.

Also, anyone in the GOP who votes for witnesses will get unloaded on by Trump. He’ll sick his mindless hounds... erm, bots on anyone who doesn’t show 100% fealty and loyalty.  He’ll put their heads on Twitter spikes for all to see and will keep doing so until they get primary’d. 

No doubt...and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict. (not saying Trump hasn't already started)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iNow said:

“Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania indicated to colleagues that he was open to calling witnesses if Republicans could arrange a witness like John R. Bolton and one more friendly to the president.”

Hey, I've met that guy!

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?

I'd agree to statement one.

For statement 2, it can mean other things. If you don't want a fair trial, it could be because you know the person is not guilty. (To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

and then Nadler and Schiff won't be the only ones prejudging and insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

So tell me what you mean by this as you seem to be implying that Nadler and Schiff are behaving poorly in the matter while the behavior of the Republican Senators has been above reproach.

Do you believe that Nadler and Schiff are basing their comments on nothing whatsoever? Have the Senators left any doubt about their intentions regarding the impeachment?

Are you under the impression that no one on 'Team Trump' has had anything negative to say regarding the jury prior to the final verdict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If you don't want a fair trial, it could be because you know the person is not guilty.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Why would you not want to be exonerated?

 

It's not unusual for an individual who has not committed a crime to be found guilty in a fair trial.

Many people have been eventually exonerated due to improvements in forensics etc but they'd likely have preferred never to be tried and just be left under suspicion.

Not guilty is a verdict rather than a statement of innocence. e.g. he probably did it but the evidence wasn't sufficiently convincing.

(BTW not defending Trump.)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.