• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Schumer requests four witnesses, including Mulvaney and Bolton, in letter to McConnell about Senate impeachment trial

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/15/poli...impeachment-trial-structure-letter/index.html

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Sunday night that he prefers a Senate impeachment trial with witness testimony and new documents, a direct rebuttal to top Republicans who have argued in recent days that a shorter trial without witnesses would spare the Senate from becoming a partisan circus.
In the letter obtained by CNN, Schumer, a New York Democrat, called for at least four witnesses to testify, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.
"We believe all of this should be considered in one resolution. The issue of witnesses and documents, which are the most important issues facing us, should be decided before we move forward with any part of the trial," Schumer wrote in the letter, adding that he would be "open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses."
The letter comes just days ahead of the House's expected vote to impeach President Donald Trump, which would set up a trial in the Senate.


Schumer's letter is the first public outreach between the leaders, who rank-and-file members on the Republican and Democratic sides have argued should sit down to hammer out the rules of the road. But Schumer's letter casts doubt on whether the two leaders will be able to agree on any resolution that sets out impeachment floor proceedings. Ultimately, the Republican majority has the power to set the rules for a trial without Democratic votes, but it will require almost-complete GOP unity with just two votes to spare in their 53-member majority.
McConnell spokesman David Popp said Sunday that "Leader McConnell has made it clear he plans to meet with Leader Schumer to discuss the contours of a trial soon. That timeline has not changed."
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the letter.
Schumer also laid out his preference for how long House managers and White House counsel would have to make their cases, cross-examine witnesses and give closing arguments. Schumer and McConnell have yet to meet to discuss the rules for the impeachment trial, which is expected to begin when lawmakers return from their holiday recess.

I suspect they will not let any new witnesses testify in the senate, which will basically kill this whole thing. Given how polarized the country is, it doesn't seem most people willing to be swayed one way or another, but, anyone wanting to hold the president accountable would definitely want to hear these testimonies the white house has been so desperate in blocking, though.
 

Rudelord

Member
Jun 11, 2013
524
333
570
I hope he wipes his ass with it after that cute little kangaroo court shit they pulled.
 

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,236
675
Why should the Senate majority cooperate? Why not just go tit-for-tat and impose the exact same kangaroo rules as the House? It would be hard for Senate Democrats to condemn rules created by House Democrats. :lollipop_halo:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Because he repeatedly refused and they needed a court ruling to compel him?
Ah, so they're just repeating their same tactics from the House phase of the impeachment, got it.

What new evidence do they hope to uncover? I thought this was a done deal anyway, which is why Nadler didn't let Republicans call witnesses in the House. Dems already have enough evidence. I say push it through the Senate as-is and let our Senators weigh what the House has delivered to them. Dems hold a majority in the House, so the articles are never going to be stronger. No one can say Republicans "poisoned pilled" the articles of impeachment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
Why should the Senate majority cooperate? Why not just go tit-for-tat and impose the exact same kangaroo rules as the House? It would be hard for Senate Democrats to condemn rules created by House Democrats. :lollipop_halo:
Not to mention, Democrats already have two defectors: one from the House who's switching to Republican and one from the Senate switching to Independent.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
12,578
21,624
1,900
The House could have gone through the legal process to see if they could testify. They are more concerned with getting this done as quickly as possibly before their primary voting. Shows how important they think this is. Now Schumer is on TV already crying about not being able to get what he wants because Democrats are in the minority in the Senate.

The House already gathered the "evidence" and said everything is damning as is. Lawyers should present their cases and then the Senate should take a vote and move on with life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Ah, so they're just repeating their same tactics from the House phase of the impeachment, got it.

What new evidence do they hope to uncover? I thought this was a done deal anyway, which is why Nadler didn't let Republicans call witnesses in the House. Dems already have enough evidence. I say push it through the Senate as-is and let our Senators weigh what the House has delivered to them. Dems hold a majority in the House, so the articles are never going to be stronger. No one can say Republicans "poisoned pilled" the articles of impeachment.

That's the thing, wouldn't you rather have the Senate call on people to clear a few things up, namely:

1) Did Trump have any real basis for wanting to investigate DNC server as it relates to Ukraine, Joe/Hunter Biden as it relates to systemic Ukrainian corruption, and however else he tried to justify this

2) Additional first hand evidence from the most important sources, especially those tied to Ukraine aid.

Republicans wanted the whistleblower and Schiff to likely show some coordination and spin this as some conspiracy, but it in no way chances the facts and numerous testimonies even IF Schiff instructed the whistleblower with regards to the best way to raise the issue.

For people who believe the testimonies, who understand Rudy's actions, who read the transcript, who know Trump's deceitful lying character, this story makes perfect sense. Having additional first hand witnesses will help make the case indisputable to even the most ardent Trump supporters (though they will likely still reelect him because Democrats bad).


The House could have gone through the legal process to see if they could testify. They are more concerned with getting this done as quickly as possibly before their primary voting. Shows how important they think this is. Now Schumer is on TV already crying about not being able to get what he wants because Democrats are in the minority in the Senate.

The House already gathered the "evidence" and said everything is damning as is. Lawyers should present their cases and then the Senate should take a vote and move on with life.

As US civilians I'm sure some people would want to get to the bottom of things in a definitive way. Also, going through courts is an extremely slow process and would have made this whole thing trivial. It would have been easier for Trump to just not obstruct the law and let people testify.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
That's the thing, wouldn't you rather have the Senate call on people to clear a few things up, namely:

1) Did Trump have any real basis for wanting to investigate DNC server as it relates to Ukraine, Joe/Hunter Biden as it relates to systemic Ukrainian corruption, and however else he tried to justify this
Yes he did have real basis for wanting these things, a point that was hammered home by the FBI corruption probe showing numerous mistakes. Trump ran on "draining the swamp" and so it should come as no surprise that he wants corruption to get rooted.

2) Additional first hand evidence from the most important sources, especially those tied to Ukraine aid.
The defense doesn't need to present any evidence if the prosecution cannot furnish any facts supporting their accusations. You have this backward.

Republicans wanted the whistleblower and Schiff to likely show some coordination and spin this as some conspiracy, but it in no way chances the facts and numerous testimonies even IF Schiff instructed the whistleblower with regards to the best way to raise the issue.

For people who believe the testimonies, who understand Rudy's actions, who read the transcript, who know Trump's deceitful lying character, this story makes perfect sense. Having additional first hand witnesses will help make the case indisputable to even the most ardent Trump supporters (though they will likely still reelect him because Democrats bad).
Yes, keep pretending there's a "secret" conspiracy here where Trump was trying to leverage Ukraine against Biden for the 2020 elections.

It's ironic that you handwave valid concerns of integrity as "spin this as some conspiracy" while you spout an actual conspiracy a few sentences later.

As US civilians I'm sure some people would want to get to the bottom of things in a definitive way. Also, going through courts is an extremely slow process and would have made this whole thing trivial. It would have been easier for Trump to just not obstruct the law and let people testify.
I reject your spurious "if they have nothing to hide..." nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
12,578
21,624
1,900
As US civilians I'm sure some people would want to get to the bottom of things in a definitive way. Also, going through courts is an extremely slow process and would have made this whole thing trivial. It would have been easier for Trump to just not obstruct the law and let people testify.

I believe there are some legal questions regarding if the President’s staff is require to testify before Congress. If it really is that critical then following standard legal process shouldn’t be an issue. Trump is also not obstructing the law by asking them to go through the courts. That’s how the legal system works. “It would take too long so do what we tell you” isn’t valid reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
Yes he did have real basis for wanting these things, a point that was hammered home by the FBI corruption probe showing numerous mistakes. Trump ran on "draining the swamp" and so it should come as no surprise that he wants corruption to get rooted.


The defense doesn't need to present any evidence if the prosecution cannot furnish any facts supporting their accusations. You have this backward.


Yes, keep pretending there's a "secret" conspiracy here where Trump was trying to leverage Ukraine against Biden for the 2020 elections.

It's ironic that you handwave valid concerns of integrity as "spin this as some conspiracy" while you spout an actual conspiracy a few sentences later.


I reject your spurious "if they have nothing to hide..." nonsense.
I was going to reply to Hotspurr but I'll just agree with you.

He has it backwards as hell and I try and stifle a laugh everytime he does it.

If someone accuses you of something, the onus is on them to prove it and so far the Democrats have produced a big, fat, nothing.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
I was going to reply to Hotspurr but I'll just agree with you.

He has it backwards as hell and I try and stifle a laugh everytime he does it.

If someone accuses you of something, the onus is on them to prove it and so far the Democrats have produced a big, fat, nothing.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.
I am happy to be labelled a "skeptic" or "too stubborn" but I feel as though I have every right to be skeptical, in light of the past 3 years of investigations against Trump. The scorecard so far:
  • Schiff has been exposed as a liar, several times. He is not a trustworthy nor unbiased nor bipartisan accuser.
  • Comey and the media have egg dripping down their faces over the IG probe into the FBI. Trump was correct when he claimed they were partisan against him, and the "mistakes" at the FBI were so bad there is going to be a top-down review of FBI mgmt and of other FISA warrants.
  • Nadler is contradicting things that came out of his own mouth during the Clinton impeachment. He is not a trustworthy nor unbiased nor bipartisan accuser.
  • The Democrat party has promised impeachment since Trump was elected. This is their fourth attempt at impeachment him. They are not unbiased accusers, either.
  • Democrats are literally switching parties and waffling on voting 'No' to their own impeachment.
The burden is on Democrats to help me overcome these glaring problems with the Democrat accusers. By my reckoning, this has been a huge waste of everyone's time, chasing after yet another failed Democrat smear job, propagated by whiny partisans.

Democrats are 100% incorrect if they believe they hold the high ground here. They propped this up as a huge bombshell and yet have utterly failed to produce facts. The mask has fallen. You can't seriously expect me to take Democrat pleas about how "Trump is striking at the heart of our constitution" while they blast through rules and decorum and constitutional protections.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.

If now we don't want to hear first hand witness testimony well you know the sheep are now herding themselves.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.

If now we don't want to hear first hand witness testimony well you know the sheep are now herding themselves.
Have you completely given up on replying to questions and contradictions? You seemed so entitled to everyone answering your questions and following along with your antics. Yet when we raise concerns, you write it off as "sheep herding themselves".

Address the integrity concerns I've raised above. Give us a reason to care about what exposed liars are saying, if you can.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.

If now we don't want to hear first hand witness testimony well you know the sheep are now herding themselves.
Translation: "I have no viable counterarguments, so I'm just going to grandstand because obviously, that adequately substitutes for fulfilling the burden of proof."
 

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Have you completely given up on replying to questions and contradictions? You seemed so entitled to everyone answering your questions and following along with your antics. Yet when we raise concerns, you write it off as "sheep herding themselves".

Address the integrity concerns I've raised above. Give us a reason to care about what exposed liars are saying, if you can.

Before I address things, let me clarify something, are you saying because some people who are accusing Trump of this are less reliable than you'd like, therefore the whole thing is a sham? Also are you as a result dismissing testimonies, texts, emails, transcripts, ect, and have decided that actual first hand accounts are not necessary to settle this?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Before I address things, let me clarify something, are you saying because some people who are accusing Trump of this are less reliable than you'd like, therefore the whole thing is a sham?
No, I'm saying the credibility of the accusers is a valid material component of determining if they are truthful or not. 'Tis the nature of "credibility". If you are telling me I need to believe these individuals in spite of the lies I have identified, please make your case.

Also are you as a result dismissing testimonies, texts, emails, transcripts, ect, and have decided that actual first hand accounts are not necessary to settle this?
See above.
 

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
No, I'm saying the credibility of the accusers is a valid material component of determining if they are truthful or not. 'Tis the nature of "credibility". If you are telling me I need to believe these individuals in spite of the lies I have identified, please make your case.


See above.

I'm not sure what you meant by "see above". Just make your case explicitly.

I get that you don't trust Schiff, does it change anything about the situation? If Schiff and Nadler were gone, what would change?
 

Texas Pride

Banned
Feb 27, 2018
3,007
5,656
665
Texas
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.

If now we don't want to hear first hand witness testimony well you know the sheep are now herding themselves.


The Democrats turned this into a joke from the beginning. Why the fuck should the Republicans legitimize the circus of stupid they didn't create? Democrats put on a good show and nobody is buying it. Take the L that's coming and move on bcs I have no doubt they'll try again with some other shit. Sometimes you swing and miss but you got to run the charade you wanted to in the House. Now the Republican majority gets to do it their way and if we follow the example of the House then fuck what the Democrats want bcs they're the minority they are irrelevant.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
1,830
4,044
745
Dems withdrew their "supoena" for Bolton. They were worried the courts would call their bluff on having not actualy voted to start the impeachment inquiry. Now they are trying to use the Senate to cover their tracks.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,430
1,215
Zelensky says no pressure, Yermak says no pressure and didn't know why the aid was withheld, contradicts Sondolonds modified testimoney.

Letchenko says the Ambasador perjured herself with apperant documented proof. Shokin says he was investigating the Bidens.

Now of course everyone in Ukraine is corrupt and liars so we shouldn't believe them, but of course we should send them 100's of millions though because they are good guys and are not corrupt.

Schiff violates citizens civil liberties and abuses his power to intimitade his political opponent, and lied about the FISA abuses.

But keep the sham going, cant stop this train because as Al Greene said if they don't impeach Trump he will win the next election. And for Dem's voters making their choice is not acceptable in their version of democracy.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not sure what you meant by "see above". Just make your case explicitly.

I get that you don't trust Schiff, does it change anything about the situation? If Schiff and Nadler were gone, what would change?
Since the impeachment accusations are based on interpretation and subjective inference, I would say it's pretty important to consider the credibility of the persons who are framing those accusations.

Are you claiming the integrity of the accusers does not matter? It's not about me "trusting" Schiff. I am pointing out factual examples where the prosecution side has lied to the public and falsified information. If you have answers to these concerns, I am open to hearing them. Until then, I am faced with the facts that the accusers are biased and have lied to the public about the listed issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Since the impeachment accusations are based on interpretation and subjective inference, I would say it's pretty important to consider the credibility of the persons who are framing those accusations.

Are you claiming the integrity of the accusers does not matter? It's not about me "trusting" Schiff. I am pointing out factual examples where the prosecution side has lied to the public and falsified information. If you have answers to these concerns, I am open to hearing them. Until then, I am faced with the facts that the accusers are biased and have lied to the public about the listed issues.

This is just whataboutism.
The fact that you didn't answer the question with regards to Schiff and Nadler being gone tells me everything I need to know.

As things stand, the evidence we have in no way depends on the credibility of the accusers, just like the credibility of the case doesn't depend on the whistleblowers identity - these are all desperation tactics to draw attention away from the substance.

The integrity of the accuser doesn't matter if the facts can stand on their own, which in this case as you've already indicated through your reluctance to answer, they do.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
This is just whataboutism.
The fact that you didn't answer the question with regards to Schiff and Nadler being gone tells me everything I need to know.

As things stand, the evidence we have in no way depends on the credibility of the accusers, just like the credibility of the case doesn't depend on the whistleblowers identity - these are all desperation tactics to draw attention away from the substance.

The integrity of the accuser doesn't matter if the facts can stand on their own, which in this case as you've already indicated through your reluctance to answer, they do.
I've already been through this NPC dialogue tree. You're barely more than a spammer at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
I've already been through this NPC dialogue tree. You're barely more than a spammer at this point.

Personally attacking people who blow up your arguments and cause you embarrassment is one way to admit defeat, but there are more subtle and respectful ways to do so as well.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,265
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Personally attacking people who blow up your arguments and cause you embarrassment is one way to admit defeat, but there are more subtle and respectful ways to do so as well.
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.

If now we don't want to hear first hand witness testimony well you know the sheep are now herding themselves.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
4,453
7,250
1,770
Montreal, Quebec

Could this all have been a sham? Nah, Dems are looking out for the best interests of the country, they would never attempt to deceive you, same way an anti-corruption bureau could never be guilty of corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
Personally attacking people who blow up your arguments and cause you embarrassment is one way to admit defeat, but there are more subtle and respectful ways to do so as well.
Then that means that you've already admitted defeat. Also, calling you a spammer isn't a personal attack as it's basically a more colloquial way of calling you out on making ad nauseam arguments.

I would also add that if you're immediately resorting to grandstanding and tone policing instead of coming up with viable counterarguments, then that's an admission of defeat. If you're putting forth shit arguments, then you will receive shit in kind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,236
675

Could this all have been a sham? Nah, Dems are looking out for the best interests of the country, they would never attempt to deceive you, same way an anti-corruption bureau could never be guilty of corruption.

"But guys, their name says anti-fascism! That's how you know they're the good guys!!"
 
Dec 15, 2011
10,008
26,688
1,265
Stick your fingers in your ears and run around screaming, while occassionally high five-ing each other and rubbing each other's backs.
 

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,236
675
Also why is Chuck "related to Amy" Schumer putting the cart before the horse and demanding anything before the House even votes? Does Chuckie "Obama admin wiretapping the Trump campaign is a conspiracy theory" Schumie-Schum not consider the House vote to be a solemn, serious affair that each member must carefully deliberate over?

Surely he isn't implying that this is all a political farce to be voted on along party lines, and thus presuming a victory in the House?!? :messenger_face_screaming:
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
Why would the Senate grant that request after how the house treated the minority?
Very good question.

The Democrats keep lobbing it up, right at the net, and they keep getting it smashed right back in their faces, then they cry that your not allowed to spike the ball.

The other team, officials, and everyone in the stands points and laughs. Then the Democrats cry foul(Russia!) from a previous game.

The stands start to empty as everyone knows the game is over except the Democrats. They decide to stay in the gym screaming and yelling about the abuse of power(it was the muscular Rocky Trump that had spiked the ball)while the lights are off and the janitor shuffles by with his headphones on so he doesn't have to hear them either.

Game was over hours ago, they just haven't figured it out yet.