Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you think they will vote to have no witnesses?

I do

[John Cuthber]

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?

[iNow]

This is America. There's no such thing as consensus, even on things as straight forward as whether things get wet when it rains

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is America. There's no such thing as consensus, even on things as straight forward as whether things get wet when it rains

Consensus is just another word for communism

[Phi for All]

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.

[Airbrush]

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 January 27, 2020 by Airbrush

[rangerx]

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.

[John Cuthber]

49 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Is there  a consensus here that deciding to

 

[zapatos]

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I do

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

Edited January 27, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

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.

[moth]

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 January 27, 2020 by moth

[zapatos]

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.

[iNow]

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. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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

 

[iNow]

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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)

[iNow]

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.”

[MigL]

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.

[iNow]

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. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

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)

[Raider5678]

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.)

[zapatos]

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?

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

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

Why would you not want to be exonerated?

[Carrock]

 

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.)