Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Because your discourse does not reflect that.

Sorry. But I just can't bring myself to saying that you project anything different than what you project.

I swear that if I could say what you want me to say, I would say it in a heartbeat.

 

How does my discourse show that I do not care for my country?

 

So we agree the senate’s job isn’t to subpoena new witnesses, but to act as a jury and look at the evidence that the house collected?

So we are in agreement that the senate shouldn’t be subpoenaing new witnesses, cause jurors don’t call witnesses.

The job of jurors is to look at evidence already gathered, not to go and gather more evidence.

 

I don't know what to tell you. Just... read yourself.

You: "The senate can make the trial whatever they want"
​

If you care for this country more than you care for this President, you have the weirdest possible way of showing it.

Assuming you considered all the evidence against this President "circumstantial"... I honestly don't know how... but assuming that you believed that because... I don't know... you believed the narrative that it's "second hand" and the narrative that Trump's own appointees have turned against him, and so on... Assuming all that, the only... only... conceivable position of somebody who places patriotism before partisanship would be to be eager to know what the truth is. Regardless of where it leads.

It would not be in favor of hiding facts, or to try to justify those who are hiding facts. It would not be to ignore the fact that Senators are required to be objective and fair. And that they have two oaths to uphold.

You just discard all this off-handidly.

And what I'm saying is that I'm getting tired of having to be the one to explain something this obvious to people who think like you.

So I pass. If you get it you get it. If you don't... you don't.

 

It is to issue the subpoenas for witnesses because that's what the rules say. If they want to change the rules and allow the House Managers to subpoena them... that's fine too. Bottom line: let's get the facts. And don't obstruct.

And the question is: why is Mitch McConnell opposed to this?

Do you have an answer?

Yes or no?

Because if you don't have an answer to this question, then you're just wasting our time.

 

That is a true statement. They are not dictated by what the house wants.

I am capable of judging what i think Trump is doing right and what he is doing wrong. You appear to be unable to make any such judgement. Everything he does is wrong.

A large part of the evidence is second and third party. The democrats have made so many claims of "we got him now" that I am reluctant to believe anything the democrats say.

It is up to the senate to decide if and when more witnesses are required.

People who think like me are the ones who maintain the sanity rather than going off half cocked about everything.

You problem is that you think that only your viewpoint is right and valid. From what I have seen, there is very little evidence that is true.

 

The House is finished with the investigation, now it is their turn to present their 'slam dunk' evidence but all of a sudden, it is no longer a 'dire national emergency'.

 

The investigations and the questioning of witnesses was completed at tedious and great length in the house. Now it is the senates job to review all that tedious, boring work and determine what portion of it is true and what portion isn't, and what portion is pure D bullxxxx.

 

I don't have a definitive position either. I just don't see the point to walking into the ambush.
In the end, I trust this Speaker to make the best of this bad situation. She knows what her caucus wants and her caucus knows how much they will be able to risk.

 

The house presented their evidence, called their favorite witnesses now the Senate must render a verdict. Simple as that. What.....were the Democrats sloppy and in a hurry? That is their problem. This is politicsl. Republicans were locked out of the Capitol basement while the House did their thing now the Dems want to tell them how to run the Senate. Not happening! You lose!!

 

Because this is not how the Senate works with impeachment. Geez, get a clue already.

 

No making cases is what investigations are for Trials are for determining the validity of those investigations.

 

Well obviously because it disagrees with his opinion.

 

The job of the House Managers is to present the case developed through the inquiry to the jury of Senators. If there is no case, the Speaker withholds the articles of impeachment to stall until the election. The news for Democrats is that the 2016 election was the time and place to earn the 3rd term of Saul Alinsky. A divisive impeachment temper tantrum over their loss is not the best way to win an election.

 

There is no doubt about that.

 

Well most rational flks already know the last parts easy 0%, 100%. and 100%

 

That will be the first test --- were any crimes committed. The answer is a resounding NO. Then the evidence against Trump is almost 100% hearsay which is inadmissible in a regular courtroom. I'll be interested to see the interplay between Roberts and the Senators over the he said she said case.

 

There is an overlooked difference not often cited between the impeachment of Clinton and Trump. McConnell keeps dodging the question of witness testimony by claiming all he wants is to follow the procedure set forth in the Clinton impeachment when the decision on witness testimony wasn't made until after the proceeding began. The difference being Clinton did not obstruct the House inquiry by ordering witnesses not to testify and documents not to be produced. Additionally, the Starr investigation had been ongoing for years so every scrap of evidence was at the disposal of Congress. Clearly this is not the case now as the Senate moves towards starting their "trial" of the Orange Fraud.

 

How do they review the evidence if the House managers are not allowed to present it?

The House does the investigation. In the Senate it's a trial. Have you ever seen a trial in which prosecutors are not allowed to show the evidence? Or where the jurors coordinate with the accused to determine what evidence is presented.... and determine that none is?

The arguments with which Trump loyalists try to justify this is such obvious nonsense, that they can't even answer the question on the OP: Why don't Republicans want the evidence to be shown in the trial?

Answer!

Everybody who I have asked this either refuses to answer or just... fades from the thread. I don't expect anything different from you, but I have to ask.

 

Who said they are not allowed to present evidence? They apparently are in no hurry suddenly. Since this is all political the ‘jurors’ of the Clinton trial coordinated with the WH. Get used to it.

 

As you pointed out during the house impeachment, this is not a criminal trial. The house would not allow the defense to present the witnesses they want. The house refused to go to court to compel witnesses. Now they are insisting the senate should do what they want. It does not work that way. The senate is solely responsible for the trial just like the house is solely responsible for the impeachment. if witnesses are needed, they will be called. As you pointed out previously, it is a political process.

 

Its in the investigation where you uncover proof. Its in the trial that that proof is shown. If the prosecution (in this case the HoR Dems) failed to due their due diligence and track down and get subpoena's for all leads then that is the prosecutions (again, HoR) fault. Not the jurors (in this case Senators) or the judges (Chief Justice John Roberts) nor the defendants (Trump). Again it is the Prosecution (Again the HoR Dems) that presents the proof. The Jurors (Senators) and Judge (Chief Justice John Roberts) are not required to search for more evidence.

A Prosecutor does not dig up just enough dirt to maybe kinda sorta imply that maybe the Defendant might have done something according to third and fourth hand account and then brings the Defendant to trial. They dig and dig and dig until they either have enough proof that they feel is enough to convict, or they drop all charges. The Prosecutors in this case (again, HoR Dems) felt that they had enough to take to trial before the "Court" (Senate and Chief Justice John Roberts). Judges do not call witnesses. The Prosecutor or Defendant does. Jurors do not call witnesses, the Prosecutor or Defendant does.

But you're in luck. This isn't really a Trial. It's a political trial. Which means that the Jurors (Senators) can call forth witnesses if they wish. But they are under no obligation to do so. They can hear what the HoR Dems have to say and then vote based entirely on what they say. Or they can choose to only call the witnesses that the Dems chose to call forth in their "hearings". But no matter which way you slice it, the Senators do NOT HAVE to call forth any new witnesses. At this point if the Senate fails to convict, then you have only one party to blame...Democratic Party. Period.

They did a rushed hatchet job that doesn't prove their main contention....that Trump solicited aide from a foreign government in order to interfere with the 2020 election. They have evidence that Trump did indeed withhold the aide from Ukraine, for investigations into possible corruption. But they have no evidence what so ever that Trump solicited aide from a foreign government in order to interfere with the 2020 election. That has always been an assumption and nothing has come out as proof that such is the case. You have opinions by a few people. But no proof what so ever beyond opinions. And opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one.

So, you can thank the Democratic Party for failing to convict and remove Trump from Office.

 

Because the House already held the trial of the century. The Senate just needs to vote on it.

 

It's astonishing to see how often Trumpers uncritically repeat that falsehood fed to them by right wing media.

 

Schiff was the judge. They asked questions and presented evidence. They held a vote. What about it isn't a trial?

Edit: Oh, I know, there was no punishment attached. That's because the punishment they were looking for is Trump's loss at the next election. So, they didn't get what they wanted from the voters. They rallied them. They are afraid to rally them further, so they want to control the Senate, too.