Defendants don't call any witnesses at all when the Crown hasn't met their burden of proof. They quit while they're ahead.
This is a very precise summary of this whole Whitehouse Criminal Branch, although it was posted online in pure jest. LOL!!
Any thinking person would conclude that if these witnesses had exculpatory evidence we would heard from them. You and other can make all the silly rationales about the burden of proof etc but the reality is quite obvious.
If the "real" tribunal here is the court of public opinion and the 2020 electorate, any sane politician would lead whatever beneficial evidence he could get from whatever witness appeared even marginally credible. Even if it wasn't "legally necessary", the political benefits would be obvious.
That might be why Trump is trying this tactic.
Not if the politician can release the same evidence to the public AFTER the impeachment articles are dismissed.
70% of the Americans who want witnesses are not stupid to notice that the only reason that Trump wanted and still wants to block the witnesses from testifying is that he is as guilty as hell. If he wanted it wrapped up by his State of the Nation Speech, then all he could have said is that John Bolton should be allowed to testify, so that if there is nothing to offer he would have been exonerated and that should have added even more steam to his speech. But The Democrats did an extremely good job by displaying all the real facts, and now they can justify the impeachment in the first place. No one expected Trump to be removed from office, but it is clear that this is a 100% coverup by the Republicans to conceal all the facts in the closet. It is unprecedented for the evidence / documents to be under lock and key. The Clinton and Nixon Impeachment processes were far more transparent!!
The conclusion is that the Chosen One knows that his employees in the Senate will never convict and in terms of the fall out he is counting on the dumbest most gullible cohort on the planet believing that non-conviction is the same as exoneration.
Clever use of the English language even if ignoring established concepts of Western jurisprudence.
I would agree if that was a real court with all witnesses and documented evidence being readily available!!
With your obvious knowledge of Western jurisprudence you will also know that non-conviction is not exoneration.
There isn't anything in your post I can agree with, but I don't think much would be accomplished by a detailed deconstruction. I'll just sum it all up by saying that if Trump is not re-elected, it won't be because of anything that happened in relation to the Ukraine, or because of anything that happened in the course of this impeachment process. Most voters don't care a whit about the Ukraine, or about the arcane arguments about what kinds of international political pressure are ok and which are not. However, if Trump is re-elected, it might be in part because independent voters don't want to be governed by a party that would abuse the impeachment power of Congress. If the Democrats are prepared to abuse the little power they now have, and are prepared to do it to a duly elected President who is successfully managing the economy and has not engaged the country in any new wars, just imagine what they would do to the Joe Q. Publics they disagree with. I believe that independant voters are pragmatic in this way.
You can call GOP senators (+ perhaps one or two DEM senators who may not vote in favour of impeachment) employees, or political allies, or just like minded politicians, it doesn't much matter. What matters is that they were elected to make decisions just like the one they are about to make. As to exoneration, unless someone else is proven to have commited the deed you are accused of, there is never any absolute exoneration. It's always based on a lack of proof, or a finding that what you are accused of isn't wrong in any event. Politically, there is a name for Presidents who are accused of wrongdoing that isn't found by the Senate. They are referred to as Presidents. Eg. President Clinton.
Exoneration? Is that a new legal standard? Since when? Any accused facing a court is deemed and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hate to point out the obvious, but that standard also applied to Trump. The bad orange man is making you people lose your minds.
LOL. That is what the Chosen One and his lawyers keep saying that the Mueller Report did (which it did not) and what he is seeking fom the Senate. You have learned projection well from your fearless leader. Too funny.
I totally agree with your first point. But simply taking orders from your employer is the opposite of making a decision. It is really quite reasonable to debate and come out on either side of whether removal from office or even impeachment is a reasonable or appropriate consequence of the Chosen One's conduct. But it is absurd to argue that he did nothing wrong and that his telephone call with Zelinsky was "perfect".
Politics is the art of assembling whatever support is necessary for advancing a specific agenda, or as much of that agenda as possible. Sometimes that support can be assembled because others simply agree with you. Sometimes others don't actually agree (or care) but need your support for something they do care about - thus, support comes as part of an amicable agreement. Sometimes support comes because you have the independent power to deny what someone else wants/needs - thus, support can come as a result of grudging agreement. No President has the power or influence to simply issue "marching orders" to Senators. However, Senators have their own agendas to advance that need the support of the President. What you describe as "following orders" (only potentially applicable in some cases, because I think a number of Senators simply agree with Trump) I see as no more than the political deal making and compromise at the heart of any democratic system of government.
