Constitutionally speaking: re Impeachment

The senate does not have to do the houses job…which BTW is what Nancy was hoping for. The Senate should just review what the hose sent over and then make their verdict.

Again the senate does not have to do ■■■■ for the house.

Since when are prosecution witnesses deposed by the jury? The Senate can, and should, suspend the trial and give the house the opportunity to call any witness they like before the house. So they can be heard by the house and voted on by the house. It’s not like the prosecutor “just learned” about new evidence or witnesses. They knew about them befor they empannelled themselves as the “grand jury” and could have at any time called them to the house.

except of course that the prosecution has known about the potential witnesses all along and opted not to call them. No judge in the land would allow them on the stand.

It’s no secret who the Democrats want to call. They have telegraphed it. And if it follows the Clinton precedent then the witnesses will be deposed on video, with both sides having equal time to ask them questions. This is pretty basic stuff man.

True, but just the same, it would be poetic justice for the Senate to send it back to the house so they can vet their own witnesses. It would kinda be like the biggest slap in the face they could give the house for even starting this charade.

Ben…libs here want everyone to think it’s a trial, it’s not. They are a jury to evidence that house sent them. They want the senate to do the houses job.

Senate should tell em to ■■■■ off.


No…don’t discuss anything other then what the house sent them.

They want the senate to get bogged down…I explain it in private chat. :wink:

That would be the houses job, not the Senates. Let the house vet them. It really is a simple proposal. Agree to hear any and every witness the house wants… after the house vets them, and votes on them. Why should the Senate search for impeaching evidence? It’s not their job.

1 Like

Yes, those big libs @Safiel and @WorldWatcher are just making it up trying to get people to falsely believe this is a trial when it’s not. Hot take!


Meh. It’s happening likely whether you understand it or not. Buckle up like the rest of us and see what’s to come.

That is exactly what my proposal does.

  1. Hear opening arguments.
    2, entertain motions.
    a) one will be to dismiss; it will fail.
    b) one will be to admit new testimony and witnesses.

Maybe that fails, maybe it succeeds. In the event it does succeed, The Senate should decide it is not right for the jury to call witnesses for the prosecution and vet them. That that is the job of the prosecution. So, suspend the trial and send it back to the house for the house to call, vet and vote for the witnesses. Puts things right back where they were when Shifty decided he didn’t need their testimony. Either go to court and fight it out over privilege, or forget the whole thing. By the time its over, Trump will be reelected and McCarthy will be the speaker.

whether i understand it? lol.

it’s not the jury’s job to call and vet new prosecution witnesses. pretty basic stuff here.

The Jury won’t have to. They only have to vote on the witnesses. The House Managers and the Defense team will depose the witnesses. Again, this is pretty basic stuff you seem to be struggling with.

You understand their will be “prosecutors” present during the Senate trial, yes?

1 Like

Nothing in the rules says that the Senate cannot develop new evidence as part of it’s trial process.

As a matter of fact the rules (as used in the Clinton impeachment) say exactly the opposide, the Senate can refer it to committee for further testimony beyond what was taken in the House.

I even provided a link to the rules.

No one knows what the Rules for the Trump Impeachment Trial will be yet as they haven’t been voted on yet.

Appeal to authority by linking to the rules that McConnell says will be the template? :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Not a lib, however…

The Senate rules that McConnell said will be the template note that the Senate can refer to the impeachment to committee for further evidence and witnesses. Just like they deposed witnesses in the Clinton impeachment.

1 Like

in what court in this land is the jury empowered to determine what testimony it will hear? It’s a simple proposal. Give the house exactly what they want, just not how they want. Agree to hear any and all witnesses the house wants, after they have gone through the appropriate processes in the house. Suspend the trial pending the house finishing its job; or, move forward on what the house brings them, and not one thing more.

It’s been explained repeatedly. I’m sorry you don’t understand. I am not able to further help at this point. Good luck!

lol. your condescension aside has nothing to do with understanding. Has to do with agreement. And you know what you can do with your condescension.

The lack of understanding is on your part. The thread is not about what the rules are, its about whether they are right.

My apologies. You’re right. I shouldn’t have been so condescending.

I’m not interested in appeals to emotion like whether I feel if they are right or fair or wrong or unfair. I’m interested in the Constitution and adherence to rules, processes, and the law.