A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

christiefan915 said:
The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

their testimony was still entered into the record. And not one of those witnesses proved any crime or said one even took place. you could have had bolton too once the court approved that what he would say would not violate executive privilege, but you were in a rush, until you weren't and then sat on it for a month. Not really a sign of good faith there, is it? But of course, you've already proven every element of his crimes, didn't you? Except you also need more witnesses to prove the case - which you've already proven btw - but still need witnesses for because reasons - That's your line of argument. And of course, being the retarded NPChristie that you are, you start spouting democrat talking points to the minute and to the word like the total mindless drone you are.

Keep losing, loser.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Yeah, so much bullshit that the trump lawyers were afraid to call them as witnesses at the actual trial.
Click to expand...

dear idiot, there is no reason to call witnesses when you already have their testimony. Nothing has changed for any of the witnesses that already testified in the house. you are certifiably retarded. Desh level. A total idiot.

I'm not a mean person. I never insult people unprompted. But you are seriously dumb, there is just no way getting around it. I don't say this to insult you, but to help you. Focus on the simpler things in life, don't expend your dumb girl brain on big topics like politics. Stick to looking at cute pictures of cats, or maybe a jigsaw puzzle (avoid small pieces, i don't want you to choke on them), maybe read a picture book. You have lots of hobbies you could do instead.
 
RB 60 said:
Why wasn't Bolton called to testify before the House? He wouldn't have had to deal with cross-examination since the Reps couldn't question him in the House debacle. Now it's too late. Tuff shit.
Click to expand...

Because Trump illegally blocked his testimony, fucking moron.
 
The Constitution says nothing about the House investigation, or even if there should be an investigation. trump's whining about the investigation being unconstitutional is nonsense. Those in JPP who have echoed that whining do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court has never overrode a impeachment investigation, and it will never.

The Constitution does say there needs to be a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. It does not specifically say there should be witnesses, but the understanding of what a trial was to the Founding Fathers would have always included witnesses. There are systems where witnesses are not required, but that was something unknown to the Founding Fathers.

But the Senate has a right to regulate themselves on this. There is no appeal beyond the Senate, so no one to tell the Senate they cannot get what they want.

No one, except the voters. If you think that banning witnesses is a violation of what a trial is, then you should vote against the Republicans.
 
Do Si Dos said:
dear idiot, there is no reason to call witnesses when you already have their testimony. Nothing has changed for any of the witnesses that already testified in the house. you are certifiably retarded. Desh level. A total idiot.

I'm not a mean person. I never insult people unprompted. But you are seriously dumb, there is just no way getting around it. I don't say this to insult you, but to help you. Focus on the simpler things in life, don't expend your dumb girl brain on big topics like politics. Stick to looking at cute pictures of cats, or maybe a jigsaw puzzle (avoid small pieces, i don't want you to choke on them), maybe read a picture book. You have lots of hobbies you could do instead.
Click to expand...

You fucking retard.
If it is a trial, which it is, then there must be witnesses.
Would any reasonable judge deny witness testimony in a trial?
 
Do Si Dos said:
their testimony was still entered into the record. And not one of those witnesses proved any crime or said one even took place. you could have had bolton too once the court approved that what he would say would not violate executive privilege, but you were in a rush, until you weren't and then sat on it for a month. Not really a sign of good faith there, is it? But of course, you've already proven every element of his crimes, didn't you? Except you also need more witnesses to prove the case - which you've already proven btw - but still need witnesses for because reasons - That's your line of argument. And of course, being the retarded NPChristie that you are, you start spouting democrat talking points to the minute and to the word like the total mindless drone you are.

Keep losing, loser.
Click to expand...

Groan
 
Do Si Dos said:
dear idiot, there is no reason to call witnesses when you already have their testimony. Nothing has changed for any of the witnesses that already testified in the house. you are certifiably retarded. Desh level. A total idiot.
Click to expand...

Under extreme situations, sometimes testimony from outside the trial can be admitted. But the best way to get testimony is to have testimony and cross examination.

Do Si Dos said:
I'm not a mean person. I never insult people unprompted.
Click to expand...

You just did insult someone unprompted. I understand this is a very emotional issue, but it would be nice if everyone could stick to reasonable debating, rather than pathetic personal insults. The insults add nothing to your claims.

There is no court in any English Common Law system that would allow a defendant to demand that no witnesses be allowed. You cannot depend on statements taken during the investigation. The last time investigation statements were regularly allowed to displace witness statements was in the Star Chamber Court, and the Founding Fathers never wanted to return to that.

You can insult me personally all you want, but those are the facts.

But there are more facts. There is no appeal beyond the Senate, so however they want to run the impeachment trial, they can. If they want to require both sides to dance the chicken dance while speaking, there is nothing anyone can do. They could even ban one side or another from presenting their side.
 
Rune said:
You fucking retard.
If it is a trial, which it is, then there must be witnesses.
Would any reasonable judge deny witness testimony in a trial?
Click to expand...

tHeRe mUsT bE wItnEsSes!

"iMpEaCHMeNT iS a PoLITiCIcAl pRoCESs!"

lol retard
 
Walt said:
It was never supposed to be a political process. But if it is a political process, then trump can be removed for any political reason they want.
Click to expand...

democrats saying "impeachment is a political process" was their personal meme for months whenever they were called on to account for their hypocrisy or their lack of anything substantial regarding impeachment
 
Do Si Dos said:
democrats saying "impeachment is a political process" was their personal meme for months whenever they were called on to account for their hypocrisy or their lack of anything substantial regarding impeachment
Click to expand...

Personal insults, and now a straw man argument, these are not the best arguments against conviction.

Impeachment is supposed to be a legal process performed by the holders of political office. In many states, judges are politically elected, and in the rest they are appointed in a political process. So I guess all legal processes are political processes.

BUT, even though having a trial without witnesses is unconstitutional, there is no one to appeal that to, so 51% of the Senate can constitutionally do that unconstitutional act... WHICH IS SOOO WEIRD!!!. The only option we have is to vote the Republicans who betrayed their oath out of office.
 
Walt said:
Personal insults, and now a straw man argument, these are not the best arguments against conviction.

Impeachment is supposed to be a legal process performed by the holders of political office. In many states, judges are politically elected, and in the rest they are appointed in a political process. So I guess all legal processes are political processes.

BUT, even though having a trial without witnesses is unconstitutional, there is no one to appeal that to, so 51% of the Senate can constitutionally do that unconstitutional act... WHICH IS SOOO WEIRD!!!. The only option we have is to vote the Republicans who betrayed their oath out of office.
Click to expand...

reeeee it's unconstitutional!

keep talking, idiot.

feel free to appeal it to the SCOTUS if you wish
 
Do Si Dos said:
feel free to appeal it to the SCOTUS if you wish
Click to expand...

As I mentioned multiple times before, it cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Let's take something we can all admit is unconstitutional. Lets say we impeach and convict trump(or any other President) for his religion. The Constitution says no religious tests to be in office, and it is a serious violation of his religious freedom. While that would be unconstitutional, it would also be impossible to appeal it to the Supreme Court. So it ends up being constitutional to unconstitutionally remove the president for being Christian(or Jewish or whatever).
 
Walt said:
The Constitution says nothing about the House investigation, or even if there should be an investigation. trump's whining about the investigation being unconstitutional is nonsense. Those in JPP who have echoed that whining do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court has never overrode a impeachment investigation, and it will never.

The Constitution does say there needs to be a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. It does not specifically say there should be witnesses, but the understanding of what a trial was to the Founding Fathers would have always included witnesses. There are systems where witnesses are not required, but that was something unknown to the Founding Fathers.

But the Senate has a right to regulate themselves on this. There is no appeal beyond the Senate, so no one to tell the Senate they cannot get what they want.

No one, except the voters. If you think that banning witnesses is a violation of what a trial is, then you should vote against the Republicans.
Click to expand...

And if you think Pelosi and the democrats abused the impeachment process for political gain, vote republican lol?
 
Do Si Dos said:
bro I am trying to go to sleep and your notifications keep blowing me up. I'll be around tomorrow to call you a retard, i promise.
Click to expand...

It is not my job to stop posting on JPP while you sleep. It is your job to not let notifications from JPP keep you awake. It shows your lack of honor that you would alter my posts in your writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top