The sole power of impeachment belongs to the house. Can the house “punt” to the Senate to complete the impeachment process? That is exactly what is happening now. If the Senate calls witnesses to further the impeachment are they not usurping the house’s “sole impeachment” power? Do they even have the Constitutional authority to do so? Or, does separation of powers (between the house and Senate re; impeachment) preclude the Senate from doing so?
The Senate’s “sole power” is to try the impeachment the house sends to them, not to seek out new impeachable evidence or testimony. Think about an actual trial. The prosecution makes a charge, they put forward their evidence, they publish their witnesses. They are not allowed to bring in new evidence or witnesses. That is what we consider under “due process” to be a “fair trial”. The prosecution gets ONE bite of the apple, not two. The defense has the right to depose any witness the prosecution brings forward. Witnesses who’s testimony is not vetted or uncertain are objected to and not allowed. It is the prosecutions job to vet the witnesses it brings forward, not the courts.
The defense can bring in its own witnesses. Put forward their own theories. The prosecution has little power to prevent it. Some defenses are not allowed, generally however that is rare if it’s even remotely theoretically possible that the defense may be valid under some odd circumstance. The prosecution cab then call new witnesses to rebut the defenses assertions. But ONLY to rebut the defenses assertions, not to introduce new evidence or testimony previously not entered. That is what we have always considered a “fair trial”
Since when does a “fair trial” consist of the prosecution being allowed to fish for new evidence during a trial? This impeachment has turned due process on its head. Now it seems a fair trial means the prosecution gets to enter new evidence and testimony after the trial begins. Evidence and testimony the defense has no opportunity to see or plan for.
In the interest of “due process” and a “fair trial”, the Senate should open the trial, hear the opening arguments and when it comes to “witnesses” agree to hear from any witness the house has already vetted in their depositions and hearings. If the house wants new witnesses the Senate should suspend the trial and give the house time subpenae the witnesses to the house, depose them, hold hearings and vote whether to include their testimony in their impeachment case; thereby, forcing the house to do its own work.
As things stand, the house wants the Senate to call witness to provide impeaching evidence, not as trial witnesses who would have and should have been vetted pre trial. The Senate should not agree to allow any witness that would not be allowed in any normal trial. To do so is a usurpation of the houses sole impeachment power and imo would be wholly unconstitutional.
The Senate calling witnesses is not “punting” to the Senate to complete the impeachment process.
Trump has already been impeached that process is complete. The Senate will now convict or not (give him a pass or remove from office).
No they are not. They are conducting a trial. Impeachment determines if enough evidence exists to impeach, the trail determines if there is enough evidence to convict. More evidence can be presented to convict they was needed to impeach.
Oh ■■■■■■■■■■ Of course the Senate can call witnesses just has they’ve done in the previous two impeachment trials they have completed with no “separation of powers” issue.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Really? Then they have already been vetted and the defense has already had the opportunity to depose them? Seriously. Yes they would be. It’s a fishing expedition that would not be allowed in any court in the land. The prosecution is not allowed “surprises” at any trial.
Deny all you wish, calling unvetted witnesses toi the Senate is not trying the impeachment the house votes on, it is an attempt to further the impeachment with testimony and evidence the house did not use to impeach.
So then, it is your opinion that prosecutors should be allowed to bring in new evidence and witnesses after a trial has started? Evidence and witnesses the defense has had no opportunity to vet prior to them/it being introduced in trial? Is that for all “fair trials” or just for the Presidents you don’t like? No, the prosecution is NEVER allowed to do this.
A grand jury is not punting to a court when an indictment leads to a trial. A trial hasn’t occurred yet. The indictment has. New witnesses testify in trials that don’t in grand juries. Crazy, I know.
Absolutely, my daughter is a prosecutor for the United States Air Force. But you say “after the trial has started”, hate to break it to you but the trial hasn’t started yet. But can witnesses be call during a trial, you bet.
The evidence needed to indict is different then the evidence for conviction and it is common to continue to develop evidence after an indictment. She just finish a sexual assault case that had been three years in the making and much of the final witness and expert testimony was obtained after the initial case was discovered and indicted.
Oh and BTW the Senate rules for impeachment trials call for referral to a committee (if desired) for further investigation and witness testimony.
The prosecution is not allowed to put unvetted witnesses on the stand. Every scrap of evidence and every witness must be available to the defense pre trial, not after it starts. In the case of impeachment the house acts as both grand jury and prosecutor. Not just grand jury. Every scrap of evidence or testimony they use in trial should be included in the actual impeachment. Just like every scrap of evidence and testimony is known to the defense before any trial. Why is this so? Because the hallmark of an unfair trial is a trial where the defense does not have the opportunity to see the evidence and know the testimony before the trial begins.
Evidence must be made when it is available not “pre-trial”. If evidence is available it has to be shared with the defense pre-trial. If new evidence is developed during the trial then it has to be shared with the defense before it can be presented to the jury.
New witnesses can still be called to a trial even after it starts with proper notifications.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Yes, it is common, it is also absolutely required that the defense has the unrestricted right to know what the evidence is and testimony will be prior to the trial. Not during it. What the democrats want is to call witnesses to the “stand” who the defense has had no opportunity to prepare for.
Impeachment is the loose equivalent of a civil indictment.
In making an indictment a Grand Jury (House of Representatives) rarely hears all the witnesses or sees all the evidence that will ultimately be taken to trial before a petit jury (Senate). The prosecution can continue to produce new witnesses and discover new evidence between the time that the indictment (impeachment) occurs and the time opening statements are made to the petit jury (Senate).
The only thing that cannot be done is to bring new charges before the Senate that were not included in the original impeachment.
But it is quite proper for the prosecution AND the defense to produce new witnesses and new evidence up to the time of opening statements, provided that the other party is IMMEDIATELY served notice of these new witnesses and new evidence.
Note that not only can the defense can cross examine prosecution witnesses, it can call back these witnesses for direct reexamination once the defense begins its case.
The Senate, according to it’s own rules link above, have the power to refer the Articles to committee and take further testimony which means the defense would have full ability to depose and question any witnesses.
How’s this. What the house wants the Senate to do, is call witnesses they believe will support the impeachment. The Senate is the court and Jury. What they are asking for is to have the court and jury depose their witnesses. That’s not how it works. In what court in this land is the “jury” tasked with finding incriminating evidence for the prosecution? There is absolutely no evidence that any of the witnesses they want can add one thing to their case, in any court in the land no judge would allow them to be put on the stand until and unless the prosecution properly vetted them.
the appeal to authority is noted. It in no way counters the argument. The rules say what they say, doesn’t make the rules right. Will the house and Senate do what they please according to the rules they make up for themselves? absolutely. That’s not the question.
