Fether

Purpose of blocking witnesses?

Recommended Posts

Witnesses are vitally important in a court of law, since they help establish what occurred and why. So-called witnesses in a political spectacle are mere shills. This is and has been political theater from its inception—indeed, from the moment in November 2016 when Trump won the Presidency and his enemies began calling for his impeachment.

The rules of law simply don't apply here, notwithstanding the presiding presence of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. If they did apply, and if they  had applied from the beginning, the Democrats would never have been able to impeach Trump. But the Democrats weren't interested in justice; they were interested in impeaching Trump. It was a purely political game, and they had the winning hand.

Now it's the Republicans' turn. They have almost as little interest in justice as the Democrats had, and in the Senate, it's the Republicans with the winning hand, not the Democrats.

The whining of the Democrats and their proxies, the MSM, about the "suppression" of "witnesses" is absurdism on display. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and probably other appropriate Shakespearean quotations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in courts of law*, there’s not always a guarantee of a trial—or witnesses.  Let me give an example:

A few months back, a few of us gathered at a local restaurant.  @pam and @Vort were both there.  @pam failed to pay for my drink, which I found personally outrageous.

Let us assume I decide to sue Pam for $2.65, which represents the value of the drink she didn’t buy me.  I could bring her to court.  I could subpoena Vort to tell what happened. I could subpoena her kids to talk about how stingy she’s always been and how she was always the worst mother ever.  I could subpoena @john doe to provide insight about how Pam’s stinginess might be related to her very advanced age.  I could subpoena @Anddenex and @estradling75 and @classylady to talk about Pam’s shameless habit of flirting with waiters.  And so on, and so on.  I mean, this is a court case, and I have a right to trial, and a trial means witnesses—right?

Well, maybe.  But here’s the thing.  I don’t get to use the court process and the subpoena power to go on a random fishing expedition through Pam’s personal life or to deliberately make a spectacle of her private dealings.  So before we start the trial (or even the pretrial discovery process), one of Pam’s options includes a “Rule 12(b)(6)” motion (aka “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted”).  The idea of a 12(b)(6) motion is:  “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, nothing happened here that the court has power to address”.  The court would look at the motion, and we’d come in and have a hearing and make legal arguments over whether, under the facts I allege, Pam had a legal responsibility to pay for my drink.  If the Court decides that she didn’t, then the case gets thrown out before I get my witnesses, or my trial, or even get to start taking depositions or subpoenaing documents.  If the Court decides that maybe she did, we get to go on to trial and call witnesses to testify as to whether all the (legally relevant) things I claim happened, really did happen.

Conceptually, that’s the gist of Senator Alexander’s rationale for voting against witnesses.  His tweet-thread is worth reading.  It basically says:  “We already pretty much know what Trump did, and we may not like it, but it’s not conduct that’s within the realm of activities for which a president can/should be impeached, so there’s no point in wasting resources holding a trial whose outcome can only be acquittal.”

One should also note that there has been witness testimony—lots of it—before the House, and I believe some witness depositions were done by the Senate; and I presume that’s all public record.  And the House Oversight Committee or Intelligence Committee or whatever group claims jurisdiction, can always hold more hearings and subpoena Bolton or whoever else they think they need to hear from that they haven’t already heard from.  The Dems just can’t browbeat the major networks into carrying the proceedings live under the guise of “historic impeachment proceedings”.  So really, in spite of this masquerade about the public’s “right to know”, what we’re seeing is essentially gripes about having to resort to processes that won’t command the prime programming and media exposure that “impeachment” does. 
 

*And comparisons between impeachment and court proceedings are of very limited usefulness, because the rules of civil and especially criminal procedure are meant to deal with dynamics and preserve certain rights that just don’t apply when you’re trying to remove an elected official from office.  There’s no “life, liberty, or property” at stake here.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats still believe that dragging this thing out keeps up the negative new on POTUS. POTUS, of course, believes all news is good publicity. The GOP is tired, bored, and would rather govern and campaign, and so are sealing the deal. As for who the real adults are in the room the answer is that they all left the building quite a long time ago.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@john doe I could subpoena @Anddenex and @estradling75 and @classylady to talk about Pam’s shameless habit of flirting with waiters.  And so on, and so on.  I mean, this is a court case, and I have a right to trial, and a trial means witnesses—right?

True, I have personally witnessed @pam flirting with the cute waiters >> such a cougar! 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that this was never going to end up with Trump out of office.  The Democrats knew it and the House knew it.  It's a political stunt show.

What I have a hard time believing is how many Americans have bought into it.  I'm not a Democrat, but I'm not a Republican either and I have NO love for Trump (as many of my posts have shown).

That said, this was a monumental waste of TIME!  As long as the Republicans held the Senate there was NO WAY an impeachment was going to go anywhere.  The Democrats have been on this witch hunt for the past 3 years.

It's like the whining kid that never shuts up.

However, apparently a majority of Americans wanted this???

News reports say Polls show Americans in favor of this (but at the same time, the number watching seems to be very low...which gives contradictory pictures of it in my mind's view).  Americans apparently wanted the impeachment to go forward while ignoring a whole lot of other stuff going on in the world and the nation??

I can see the Democrats points, but I also find some of their stuff hypocritical (if Trump is guilty, Biden is absolutely guilty as well, and if it is abuse of power, look no more than what many of the House Democrats did with this very impeachment). 

I personally would rather they focus on things that are more important than trying to force an impeachment that will, in the end, accomplish absolutely nothing (in my opinion).  They should do something worthwhile, no matter whether Trump deserves it or not at this point.

Once they have both the House and Senate if they wanted to try this, it would have had a better chance, but with the limited hold on Congress they have, it wasn't going anywhere...

Unless of course you subscribe to the theory that Trump was not the actual target of this (it was some of their own candidates that they wished to discredit or make it harder for them to win the Democratic Nomination, in which case it could turn out to be a pretty big success).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Even in courts of law*, there’s not always a guarantee of a trial—or witnesses.  Let me give an example:

A few months back, a few of us gathered at a local restaurant.  @pam and @Vort were both there.  @pam failed to pay for my drink, which I found personally outrageous.

Let us assume I decide to sue Pam for $2.65, which represents the value of the drink she didn’t buy me.  I could bring her to court.  I could subpoena Vort to tell what happened. I could subpoena her kids to talk about how stingy she’s always been and how she was always the worst mother ever.  I could subpoena @john doe to provide insight about how Pam’s stinginess might be related to her very advanced age.  I could subpoena @Anddenex and @estradling75 and @classylady to talk about Pam’s shameless habit of flirting with waiters.  And so on, and so on.  I mean, this is a court case, and I have a right to trial, and a trial means witnesses—right?

Well, maybe.  But here’s the thing.  I don’t get to use the court process and the subpoena power to go on a random fishing expedition through Pam’s personal life or to deliberately make a spectacle of her private dealings.  So before we start the trial (or even the pretrial discovery process), one of Pam’s options includes a “Rule 12(b)(6)” motion (aka “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted”).  The idea of a 12(b)(6) motion is:  “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, nothing happened here that the court has power to address”.  The court would look at the motion, and we’d come in and have a hearing and make legal arguments over whether, under the facts I allege, Pam had a legal responsibility to pay for my drink.  If the Court decides that she didn’t, then the case gets thrown out before I get my witnesses, or my trial, or even get to start taking depositions or subpoenaing documents.  If the Court decides that maybe she did, we get to go on to trial and call witnesses to testify as to whether all the (legally relevant) things I claim happened, really did happen.

Conceptually, that’s the gist of Senator Alexander’s rationale for voting against witnesses.  His tweet-thread is worth reading.  It basically says:  “We already pretty much know what Trump did, and we may not like it, but it’s not conduct that’s within the realm of activities for which a president can/should be impeached, so there’s no point in wasting resources holding a trial whose outcome can only be acquittal.”

One should also note that there has been witness testimony—lots of it—before the House, and I believe some witness depositions were done by the Senate; and I presume that’s all public record.  And the House Oversight Committee or Intelligence Committee or whatever group claims jurisdiction, can always hold more hearings and subpoena Bolton or whoever else they think they need to hear from that they haven’t already heard from.  The Dems just can’t browbeat the major networks into carrying the proceedings live under the guise of “historic impeachment proceedings”.  So really, in spite of this masquerade about the public’s “right to know”, what we’re seeing is essentially gripes about having to resort to processes that won’t command the prime programming and media exposure that “impeachment” does. 
 

*And comparisons between impeachment and court proceedings are of very limited usefulness, because the rules of civil and especially criminal procedure are meant to deal with dynamics and preserve certain rights that just don’t apply when you’re trying to remove an elected official from office.  There’s no “life, liberty, or property” at stake here.

I'm kind of scared now that JAG seems to know so much about me. :P  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pam said:

I'm kind of scared now that JAG seems to know so much about me. :P  

Don't try to dodge the bullet, where is that $2.65 you still owe him for the drink? 🥤 hah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Don't try to dodge the bullet, where is that $2.65 you still owe him for the drink? 🥤 hah!

Wow he seems to forget that I bought him a root beer at dinner once.  Does he think of that?  No I tell ya.  He comes to the forums and whines that I haven't paid him for the one I didn't buy him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Even in courts of law*, there’s not always a guarantee of a trial—or witnesses.  Let me give an example:

A few months back, a few of us gathered at a local restaurant.  @pam and @Vort were both there.  @pam failed to pay for my drink, which I found personally outrageous.

Let us assume I decide to sue Pam for $2.65, which represents the value of the drink she didn’t buy me.  I could bring her to court.  I could subpoena Vort to tell what happened. I could subpoena her kids to talk about how stingy she’s always been and how she was always the worst mother ever.  I could subpoena @john doe to provide insight about how Pam’s stinginess might be related to her very advanced age.  I could subpoena @Anddenex and @estradling75 and @classylady to talk about Pam’s shameless habit of flirting with waiters.  And so on, and so on.  I mean, this is a court case, and I have a right to trial, and a trial means witnesses—right?

Well, maybe.  But here’s the thing.  I don’t get to use the court process and the subpoena power to go on a random fishing expedition through Pam’s personal life or to deliberately make a spectacle of her private dealings.  So before we start the trial (or even the pretrial discovery process), one of Pam’s options includes a “Rule 12(b)(6)” motion (aka “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted”).  The idea of a 12(b)(6) motion is:  “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, nothing happened here that the court has power to address”.  The court would look at the motion, and we’d come in and have a hearing and make legal arguments over whether, under the facts I allege, Pam had a legal responsibility to pay for my drink.  If the Court decides that she didn’t, then the case gets thrown out before I get my witnesses, or my trial, or even get to start taking depositions or subpoenaing documents.  If the Court decides that maybe she did, we get to go on to trial and call witnesses to testify as to whether all the (legally relevant) things I claim happened, really did happen.

Conceptually, that’s the gist of Senator Alexander’s rationale for voting against witnesses.  His tweet-thread is worth reading.  It basically says:  “We already pretty much know what Trump did, and we may not like it, but it’s not conduct that’s within the realm of activities for which a president can/should be impeached, so there’s no point in wasting resources holding a trial whose outcome can only be acquittal.”

One should also note that there has been witness testimony—lots of it—before the House, and I believe some witness depositions were done by the Senate; and I presume that’s all public record.  And the House Oversight Committee or Intelligence Committee or whatever group claims jurisdiction, can always hold more hearings and subpoena Bolton or whoever else they think they need to hear from that they haven’t already heard from.  The Dems just can’t browbeat the major networks into carrying the proceedings live under the guise of “historic impeachment proceedings”.  So really, in spite of this masquerade about the public’s “right to know”, what we’re seeing is essentially gripes about having to resort to processes that won’t command the prime programming and media exposure that “impeachment” does. 
 

*And comparisons between impeachment and court proceedings are of very limited usefulness, because the rules of civil and especially criminal procedure are meant to deal with dynamics and preserve certain rights that just don’t apply when you’re trying to remove an elected official from office.  There’s no “life, liberty, or property” at stake here.

Thanks for this @Just_A_Guy, its nice to have my suspicious about @pam confirmed, even if it is coming from a lawyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pam said:

Wow he seems to forget that I bought him a root beer at dinner once.  Does he think of that?  No I tell ya.  He comes to the forums and whines that I haven't paid him for the one he bought me.  

So it sounds like you set a precedence of expectations there.

If you do something once...well...

:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So it sounds like you set a precedence of expectations there.

If you do something once...well...

:eek:

So just don't be nice.  Not even once.  :P   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 10:51 PM, Fether said:

What was the purpose of blocking witnesses to the impeachment hearing?

This was not the impeachment hearing.  This was the impeachment TRIAL.

The hearing happened in the House and the Democrats interrogated 18 witnesses that they presented and blocked all of the Republican witnesses and blocked the President's legal counsel from interrogating the witnesses.

After hearing all 18 witnesses, the House decided these witnesses provided enough evidence to judge the President guilty of impeachable offenses.

They submitted to the Senate the articles that they impeached him for and all of the evidence that support such judgment.

Now, they demand additional witnesses - people who have not been deposed nor interrogated to determine if they even have credible evidence to add to the case - to prove their case after Trump's legal counsel made them look stupid.   It is not the Senate's job to find evidence to try an impeachment case.  It is the House's job to do that in the impeachment hearing.

But even after all this - the fact still remains - the Senate reviewed the testimony of 17 witnesses (the House did not submit 1 of them to "protect the whistleblower" - although, we all know that it is because the 18th witness' testimony showed that the whistleblower collaborated with Schiff before blowing the whistle) all of whom were submitted by Democrats.  The Republicans were able to submit ZERO witnesses.  And according to the House the evidence presented by all these witnesses was sufficient to impeach the President of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 11:38 PM, prisonchaplain said:

The Democrats still believe that dragging this thing out keeps up the negative new on POTUS. POTUS, of course, believes all news is good publicity. The GOP is tired, bored, and would rather govern and campaign, and so are sealing the deal. As for who the real adults are in the room the answer is that they all left the building quite a long time ago.

The error in this thinking is that all the TV shows us is the theatrics.

These are all adults in the room moving around the clam shells to cover up for Crossfire Hurricane and Crowdstrike's involvement in the origins of the Russian Collusion hoax.  And, as this comment indicates - it is working like a charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now