You can't have it both ways. If Chalupa Grande and Steele Dossier guy are relevant, let them testify at trial before the Senate. If they don't, their testimony isn't relevant, right?
That ship has already sailed thanks to the house Dems rush to impeach. Like I said earlier Pelosi bungled the out of this.
Any witnesses in previous impeachment trials that were called before the senate had also been witnesses during house impeachment trials. Begging for new witnesses at the senate is unprecedented and laughable considering how the house ran its proceedings. Should McConnell cave because Pelosi ed up?
You didn't answer my question. Do you now realize why that proves my point - a point you're dodging?
I thought the defense was all team due process? A trial without live witnesses is unprecedented and laughable.
Bring back the same witnesses from the house proceedings just like every impeachment trial before this.
Pelosi/Schiff ed up on not going to court to compel witnesses and now want a redo in the senate. That’s not how it works and I find joy in watching the left cry about it.
In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
You’re not making a strong point and are missing my point, which you’re dodging by avoiding my question.
Should McConnell cave because Pelosi ed up?
Your point is a non-sequitur and irrelevant to the original point you were arguing which was: the House GOP was somehow prejudiced by not calling "their" witnesses. What you're missing is that their burden is to first show the relevance of those witnesses as a precondition to their being prejudiced. McConnell caving or not to Pelosi is utterly irrelevant. You're talking about this like there's merit to the GOP list of witnesses. There's not, and you're avoiding that issue like the plague.
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.
I guess I should say, rest their case.
Do you rest your case at the end of discovery or after you've presented your evidence to the jury?
Asking for a friend
Darrin Drive by fail just like TSA.
Do you guys ever get tired of playing the victim card? In case you didn't realize it, it's kind of a bad look for a grown ing man, tbh.
Issue was already addressed in the link I provided.
You’re talking about this as if it’s a standard criminal trial, it’s not. In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
You don't establish precedent from a sample of two.
Then why was dear leader crying foul about a lack of due process? You can't have it both ways.
Again, this has about to do with the issue of relevance. You haven't passed the initial gateway. And as for the house/senate issue, why's that significant?
In other words, you can’t name one.
You don't establish precedent from a sample of two.
I’m not trying to have it both ways.
Pelosi rushed the articles instead of waiting for more evidence/witnesses to build a stronger case. She made a political gamble and is now being forced to eat it by McConnell.
You're still not proving any of the house GOP's witnesses mattered in the first place. But I'll assume you can't do that and move on.
You said this is not a "standard criminal trial." Dear leader has ed and moaned for months that he hasn't been given due process. Due process would apply in a standard criminal trial. But you're saying this is not one.
So pick a lane - is this a standard criminal trial or no?
You're wasting your time debating trump cultist--the more logic you bring into the argument the more defiant they get--before trump announced he was running for president 3/4 of his cult thought he was a clown--now his their savior SMH
I suppose during the Johnson impeachment your dumb ass would be saying we can't impeach a President because it's never happened before.
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences
do you think the house's impeachment was the prosecution's case? no. that was the indictment.
the prosecution then puts on their case at trial before the jury
Cornered in an argument he can't win, TSA lands on "Doesn't matter, Republicans run the Senate and can do whatever they want, nah nah nah."
Impeachment is analogous to indictment.
Witnesses and evidence are introduced at trial. Sometimes, information that has recently come to light is introduced for the first time at trial.
Lol magpie Darrin, blindly repeating what others say.
Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
