Poll of the Day > Imagine not allowing evidence or witnesses in a trial.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Imagine that.
---

why is everyone trying to get me to imagine stuff :(

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

why is everyone trying to get me to imagine stuff :(

Imagine me and you, I do.

---

I think about you day and night

---

Imagine minimizing hearsay and rumors in a political show trial? In an election year?

---

> Imagine not allowing evidence or witnesses in a trial.

Yup, that would be a hearing.

---

Long live god-emperor Trump! First of his name!

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

why is everyone trying to get me to imagine stuff :(

imagine spider-man is still a dude but has HUGE tits

---

Zangulus posted...

Mitch McConnel is refusing to do his duties as a senator and blocking the will of the people?!

#PikachuGoatse.

Did you know that, not one, but TWO of the lawyers in Trumps defense have donated to Mitch Connells re-election campaign? One was Ken Starr and I forgot the other but a simple google search will tell you.

Edit: And I dont mean like donated years ago, I mean like this year. Think about that. But people are either too dumb or too busy to keep up with this shit.

---

Imagine that 17 witnesses were allowed in the trial.

Imagine that.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Imagine that 17 witnesses were allowed in the trial.

Imagine that.

do you mean the house inquiry?

That wasnt a trial.

---

Mead posted...

do you mean the house inquiry?

That wasnt a trial.

they allowed all of that evidence in the trial

Fam_Fam posted...

they allowed all of that evidence in the trial

there still isnt any reason to not allow new relevant testimony or evidence aside from participating in a cover up

if trump did nothing wrong and is being impeached for a perfect phone call then there surely must be at least one example of exonerating evidence, no?

---

Mead posted...

there still isnt any reason to not allow new relevant testimony or evidence aside from participating in a cover up

if trump did nothing wrong and is being impeached for a perfect phone call then there surely must be at least one example of exonerating evidence, no?

they are arguing now that its not an impechable offense so basically trump has admitted to it and more witnesses may mean nothing in the long run. it just depends on if they actually think its impeachable or not now.

---

Mead posted...

there still isnt any reason to not allow new relevant testimony or evidence aside from participating in a cover up

if trump did nothing wrong and is being impeached for a perfect phone call then there surely must be at least one example of exonerating evidence, no?

And what new evidence has been discovered that was not already available for the House to consider? The witnesses that are being proposed by the House are the same witnesses that the House deemed of its own accord not to be necessary to the impeachment. The testimony they could give now is identical to the testimony they could have given then. Unless there is some new development that literally occurred after the House impeachment hearings but prior to the Senate trial the House has already declared any testimony the proposed witnesses could give as being nil.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

And what new evidence has been discovered that was not already available for the House to consider? The witnesses that are being proposed by the House are the same witnesses that the House deemed of its own accord not to be necessary to the impeachment. The testimony they could give now is identical to the testimony they could have given then. Unless there is some new development that literally occurred after the House impeachment hearings but prior to the Senate trial the House has already declared any testimony the proposed witnesses could give as being nil.

John Boltons testimony

---

Jen0125 posted...

John Boltons testimony

Was available before but...

aDirtyShisno posted...

the House deemed of its own accord not to be necessary to the impeachment.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

And what new evidence has been discovered that was not already available for the House to consider? The witnesses that are being proposed by the House are the same witnesses that the House deemed of its own accord not to be necessary to the impeachment. The testimony they could give now is identical to the testimony they could have given then. Unless there is some new development that literally occurred after the House impeachment hearings but prior to the Senate trial the House has already declared any testimony the proposed witnesses could give as being nil.

the White House literally blocked multiple witnesses from testifying and has advised the NSA not to turn over relevant evidence during the house inquiry

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Was available before but...

Why should the White House be able to decide what is relevant? Defendants don't get to choose what evidence is relevant to their cases regularly.

---

Mead posted...

the White House literally blocked multiple witnesses from testifying and has advised the NSA not to turn over relevant evidence during the house inquiry

Which has been done by the White House under every single administration. The House only claims that it is wrong to use Executive Privilege during an impeachment hearing but has no legal backing to support that argument. The House has every right to sue and let the judiciary decide that, because the argument has never been adjudicated, but refused to do so, instead opting to charge the President with a non-crime obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Justice is a legal crime that violation of would be unlawful, but obstruction of Congress is something that this Congress created to use as a means of supporting the impeachment agenda.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Why should the White House be able to decide what is relevant? Defendants don't get to choose what evidence is relevant to their cases regularly.

Since when is the House the same as the White House? One is a branch of Congress, the other is the Executive branch of the United States. Might want to brush up on your civics studies.

---

Mead posted...

there still isnt any reason to not allow new relevant testimony or evidence aside from participating in a cover up

if trump did nothing wrong and is being impeached for a perfect phone call then there surely must be at least one example of exonerating evidence, no?

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Since when is the House the same as the White House? One is a branch of Congress, the other is the Executive branch of the United States. Might want to brush up on your civics studies.

I thought you said White House, my bad.

---

remember when obama cohorted with Ukraine to get dirt on Manafort?

---

Make sure you are registered and vote them out.

---

Llamachama posted...

Make sure you are registered and vote them out.

The electoral college renders most peoples votes meaningless. Only matters for swing states.

---

The Popo posted...

The electoral college renders most peoples votes meaningless. Only matters for swing states.

I assume hes talking about the Senators, not the President.

But in either case the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of the republic, not the democratic process itself. As the old saying goes democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide whats for dinner.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

I assume hes talking about the Senators, not the President.

But in either case the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of the republic, not the democratic process itself. As the old saying goes democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide whats for dinner.

It protects nothing when your vote literally doesn't matter.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

But in either case the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of the republic

funny how other free countries get along just fine without it

---

Revelation34 posted...

It protects nothing when your vote literally doesn't matter.

Your vote only really doesnt matter when youre for the minority party in a State that heavily leans one way, such as trying to vote Republican in California. However, in the Presidential election your vote determines who will be your Electors in the Electoral College. Your vote doesnt directly elect the President. This is to insure that one State cant become so powerful that it overrides the other 49 all on its own.

You did take a civics class in high school, right?

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Your vote only really doesnt matter when youre for the minority party in a State that heavily leans one way, such as trying to vote Republican in California. However, in the Presidential election your vote determines who will be your Electors in the Electoral College. Your vote doesnt directly elect the President. This is to insure that one State cant become so powerful that it overrides the other 49 all on its own.

You did take a civics class in high school, right?

yes, which is why I know what a faithless elector is.

Stick to your talents. Like photographing unconscious women.

@Revelation34 I didnt know you were Cacciatos alt...

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Your vote only really doesnt matter when youre for the minority party in a State that heavily leans one way, such as trying to vote Republican in California. However, in the Presidential election your vote determines who will be your Electors in the Electoral College. Your vote doesnt directly elect the President. This is to insure that one State cant become so powerful that it overrides the other 49 all on its own.

You did take a civics class in high school, right?

Yeah everybody is going to move to California and reregister just to make a super powerful state for election purposes.
---

Imagine pushing through a purely partisan impeachment without any merit then demanding to waste the senate's time by calling witnesses you refused to touch in congress and evidence you said you had, trying to turn this into a process that runs into the next election season so you can exploit it for political advantage while simultaneously downplaying investigations into corruption.

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Imagine that.

Easy, we have an entire political party who has betrayed their oath of office and are betraying the constitution.

They're going to vote to dismiss in short order, I'm sure. I don't understand why they sent it over to the Senate.

aDirtyShisno posted...

@Revelation34 I didnt know you were Cacciatos alt...

Hes not. But glad you dont have a rebuttal for the established facts.

Lokarin posted...

remember when obama cohorted with Ukraine to get dirt on Manafort?

Is this the new thing Republicans are making up? Asking for a friend.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

Is this the new thing Republicans are making up? Asking for a friend.

It's not new, there is a whole conspiracy where Hillarys emails are hidden in Ukraine.

Russia just keeps making up insane shit and republicans gobble it up without question because it makes democrats look bad.

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah everybody is going to move to California and reregister just to make a super powerful state for election purposes.

You dont seem to understand what youre saying. Thered be no reason for that in either scenario. The point of the Electoral College is if, for example, California had a major population boom it alone wouldnt hold all the voting power. In both scenarios its advantageous NOT to consolidate all members of one party in a single location to try and make a super powerful State for election purposes.

The only difference is that without the Electoral College one State could become super powerful whereas with it no one State can sway an election alone. States MUST work together, hence the entire point of the republic.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

The witnesses that are being proposed by the House are the same witnesses that the House deemed of its own accord not to be necessary to the impeachment.

Yes, because the House - not unlike a Grand Jury - uses steelman arguments for the prosecution. In essence, you are assuming the most favourable view of the facts for the prosecution in order to determine whether or not to proceed to a trial. At the actual trial, you are supposed to steelman the other way, viewing the case as favourably as possible for the defence.

And while the proposed testimony wasn't strictly necessary (because it was already evident that Trump had committed multiple crimes), it would still have been beneficial, because Bolton could shed further light on what Trump knew and when, which would call several of the defences his lawyers raised into question.

Worth noting that majorities of all political alignments - including Republicans - were in favour of additional witness testimony in the trial.

Zeus posted...

Imagine pushing through a purely partisan impeachment without any merit

Trump illegally withheld congressionally-appropriated funds (Crime #1) in order to solicit a bribe (Crime #2) from a foreign entity for purely partisan purposes to interfere in an upcoming election (Crime #3), then refused to comply with congressional subpoenas for investigations into what happened (Crime #4).

That is the opposite of a purely partisan impeachment without merit. Hell, by the time the trial was over, even Republicans were admitting that Trump had done exactly what he was accused of and that it was, indeed, criminal. They finally wound up falling back on the defence of "Yes, he committed a crime, but we don't believe solicitation of bribery or interference in a federal election is worthy of removal from office", largely because that's the only defence they were left with that can't be disproven by the evidence on record.

---

Welcome to the US, where crimes are legal and at trials we actively try to not determine innocence or guilt

---

A few things to consider on the whole issue.

1. Richard Nixon was impeached (resigned before the trial) on one recording of him asking for someone to investigate his political opponents, and then pressured those investigating any wrongdoing with being fired for investigating. He was found guilty of abuse of power.

2. Donald Trump has not one, but several times of him being recorded asking for politicians and at least three other countries (China, Russia, and the Ukraine) to investigate his political opponents.

3. Trump wanted witnesses (even the ones that didn't testify in the House inquiry).

4. Trump has repeatedly put pressure on (and fired) people who were investigating whether or not he did anything wrong. He has even wrongly accused the Democrats of starting (and taking part in) the Russia probe of the 2016 election. It was a Republican who cleared the permission to start the investigation, and a Republican who led the bipartisan team of investigators.


---

Imagine that in Middle Ages, in some countries, you won the case literally in respect to the money you had. E.g., a nobleman vs a nobleman. Two noblemen give a pouch of coins to the judge. Neither knows how much one gave. The judge rules in favour to the one who gave him more money.

aDirtyShisno posted...

You dont seem to understand what youre saying. Thered be no reason for that in either scenario. The point of the Electoral College is if, for example, California had a major population boom it alone wouldnt hold all the voting power. In both scenarios its advantageous NOT to consolidate all members of one party in a single location to try and make a super powerful State for election purposes.

The only difference is that without the Electoral College one State could become super powerful whereas with it no one State can sway an election alone. States MUST work together, hence the entire point of the republic.

No you missed the point. If all votes mattered then the president would be elected by the majority of votes. A state having more politicians wouldn't change anything in that scenario.
---

Imagine blocking an entire investigation into your wrongdoings.

---

Imagine actually supporting Trump being removed and then getting stuck with fucking Mike Pence.
---

Imagine actually being shocked at this whole sideshow. Everybody knew that the trial would hit a wall as soon as it went to the Senate.

---

imagine no possessions

---

lmao people don't realize that the House Inquiry wasn't a trial.
The Senate is the real trial. The House voted to impeach, the Senate tries the President for committing impeachable offenses.

---