Posted on 12/13/2019 10:38:18 PM PST by conservative98
"My personal view is the House conducted a partisan show trial," Cruz said Thursday. "They denied due process. They didn't allow the president to cross-examine witnesses. They didn't allow Republicans to call witnesses. I think the Senate needs to do better. We need to respect due process. We need a fair proceeding. That means we need to let both sides present their case."
"If the president wants to call witnesses, if the president wants to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower, the Senate should allow the president to call witnesses in his defense," the Senator said.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
LOL.
I’m with you!
If I were Trump, I would say, 'I will forego a Senate Trial if and only if, Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler agree to sign, and declare under the penalty of perjury, an Agreement of Affirmative Defenses:
Then move for unanimous acquittal.
“It must be a “spectacle”
No matter what else, it will be that.
Summary dismissal is off the table and POTUS will put up a “defense”.
But an offensive one.
Of course, they still have not mustered 218 votes in the House. And that may be tougher than they expected.
“Introduce complexity, and allow the Left’s lawyers and Media to respond - we might lose.”
In no known universe does the Senate muster more than 45 votes to remove.
“Why would the house dems send this to the senate if there is risk of exposure for hillory, the state department and deep state?”
They have not done so, yet.
Vote is “sometime next week”, but not yet scheduled.
They’re nervous.
They had their circus. It sucked. Let’s show them what a real circus looks like, with elephants jumping through hoops of fire mounted by beautiful damsels, and tight-rope artists working without a net.
Biden threatened Lindsey publicly and Lindsey backed down pretty darn quick.
Calling witnesses will put the truth out there for all Dems and independents to see. The public has only heard one side of the story at this point. Hearings will display the other side.
If the Republicans fail to call witnesses, the Dems and the liberal press will skewer Republicans for being "afraid of the truth".
I agree. No action Gowdy said take the win and call witnesses later through the committee process.
The accuser brings that anyway, in the accusation.
You are suggesting to allow the accusation to lie there, unrebutted. Dismiss because "even if all that is true, and for argument we will say it is, we will not remove from office."
Even if that isn't how the argument is made, that's what it amounts to. A summary "these charges are bogus" without more explanation than House GOP has already mustered, isn't much better.
The public has barely been exposed to the defense. And the public has not been exposed to certain facts in defense, such as the hard evidence that Biden is corrupt, and the hard evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.
Trump has all sorts of investigatory power, and does not get any gain from "discovery on account of being impeached."
To the extent that the Senate allows the accuser to put on live witnesses, Trump should be given the right to impeach their testimony. I suspect he already has the facts for that, no need to "discover" them, just give him an opening to present.
That depends on the Senate Resolution governing the conduct of the trial.
Upon the conclusion of the President's presentation, Senators may question the parties for a period of time not to exceed 16 hours.
https://youtu.be/pDrqurEpR_c?t=557 [video link starts at 9:16]
transcript:
09:17 - 13:14
All right. Lindsey Graham, as you know, is proposing that when the Senate gets the impeachment case - assuming that the House votes to impeach, the Senate takes it up next - and Lindsey Graham, very much in agreement with my opinion, might not ask any witnesses.
He might just say: "Let's just vote on it - there's nothing else to say. It's a - it's a crock, and just vote it out of business."
I have said that that's brilliant. But it needs to be paired with a statement that is really, really brief and telling why the two articles of impeachment are not even applicable. You know that they're just ridiculous.
So I haven't heard that the Republicans plan to do the brief statement, but I can imagine something like that will probably come out of it now.
Some people have said - "Hey hey hey - we want the Republicans to be able to call witnesses like Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff and all that, because we'll find out all this new stuff and it'll be great for the Republicans!"
Here's the problem, and here's why I agree with Lindsey Graham.
Once you've won the case or made the sale, let's say - you don't want to keep selling. You never want to keep selling after the close.
If you ever heard that phrase - I use it once in a while - never sell past the close.
What that means is - let's say you're a sales person, and you've convinced your buyer to buy, and the buyer says - "Okay, I'm gonna buy this thing".
The moment the buyer says "yes", do not keep describing your product.
Because if you keep describing it, there's a nonzero chance you'll say something that will reverse the sale - but if you just shut up once you've got the "yes" and you say "Okay, is it gonna be, you know, check or credit card?" and you just work on the transaction - that's how you would be trained as a salesperson.
I would argue that having watched the House grapple with the impeachment stuff, that in terms of the public, and certainly the Republicans in the Senate, that the sale is already made.
They've already decided to vote against it, because there's nothing there, in their view. Which I agree with - but if they call witnesses, they introduce new variables, and they allow the other team - the Fake News - to create new stories about it, and all it does is create possibilities for bad stuff to happen.
Sure, I know you want revenge - I know you want to see Schiff squirming in front of the questioning.
But I believe that he can be brought up separately - correct me if I'm wrong - but I think Adam Schiff could, if the Senate wanted to or the House (I don't know how that works exactly) - but I'm sure they can call in witnesses for anything they want.
They just have to have a reasonably good predicate, I guess.
So Schiff could be still questioned in a separate process, but Lindsey Graham is 100% strategically "lawyer correct". He got it right strategically, because once you've - once you've won, just bank the win, so that's smart.
Don't allow new variables in - it's all good.
So Lindsey Graham smart.
Those who say "Let's keep this going, because it makes the other team bad or we'll interview them and make them squirm" - bad strategy.
Take the win - TAKE THE WIN, so Lindsey Graham smart.
I think the key is the short sentence for each "charge" explaining how the charge is complete dog squeezins.
https://youtu.be/pDrqurEpR_c?t=557 [video link starts at 9:16]
transcript:
09:17 - 13:14
All right. Lindsey Graham, as you know, is proposing that when the Senate gets the impeachment case - assuming that the House votes to impeach, the Senate takes it up next - and Lindsey Graham, very much in agreement with my opinion, might not ask any witnesses.
He might just say: "Let's just vote on it - there's nothing else to say. It's a - it's a crock, and just vote it out of business."
I have said that that's brilliant. But it needs to be paired with a statement that is really, really brief and telling why the two articles of impeachment are not even applicable. You know that they're just ridiculous.
So I haven't heard that the Republicans plan to do the brief statement, but I can imagine something like that will probably come out of it now.
Some people have said - "Hey hey hey - we want the Republicans to be able to call witnesses like Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff and all that, because we'll find out all this new stuff and it'll be great for the Republicans!"
Here's the problem, and here's why I agree with Lindsey Graham.
Once you've won the case or made the sale, let's say - you don't want to keep selling. You never want to keep selling after the close.
If you ever heard that phrase - I use it once in a while - never sell past the close.
What that means is - let's say you're a sales person, and you've convinced your buyer to buy, and the buyer says - "Okay, I'm gonna buy this thing".
The moment the buyer says "yes", do not keep describing your product.
Because if you keep describing it, there's a nonzero chance you'll say something that will reverse the sale - but if you just shut up once you've got the "yes" and you say "Okay, is it gonna be, you know, check or credit card?" and you just work on the transaction - that's how you would be trained as a salesperson.
I would argue that having watched the House grapple with the impeachment stuff, that in terms of the public, and certainly the Republicans in the Senate, that the sale is already made.
They've already decided to vote against it, because there's nothing there, in their view. Which I agree with - but if they call witnesses, they introduce new variables, and they allow the other team - the Fake News - to create new stories about it, and all it does is create possibilities for bad stuff to happen.
Sure, I know you want revenge - I know you want to see Schiff squirming in front of the questioning.
But I believe that he can be brought up separately - correct me if I'm wrong - but I think Adam Schiff could, if the Senate wanted to or the House (I don't know how that works exactly) - but I'm sure they can call in witnesses for anything they want.
They just have to have a reasonably good predicate, I guess.
So Schiff could be still questioned in a separate process, but Lindsey Graham is 100% strategically "lawyer correct". He got it right strategically, because once you've - once you've won, just bank the win, so that's smart.
Don't allow new variables in - it's all good.
So Lindsey Graham smart.
Those who say "Let's keep this going, because it makes the other team bad or we'll interview them and make them squirm" - bad strategy.
Take the win - TAKE THE WIN, so Lindsey Graham smart.
Adams is correct!
Adams is no more or less a persuasion expert than President Trump
Adams constantly reminds his audience that Trump is perhaps the greatest Persuasion expert that the world has ever seen.
I would enjoy beating the Dem hypocrites with their own lying lips - but they still have the power of their Media at their disposal.
I'm sure Trump will take whatever "free money" the Dumbs have left on the table, and walk away with the Win.
Yes.
See my post #94 for the full transcript and video of Adams' remarks on this.
The Statement.....
Leave that for History to worry over
Suppose the Trump defense subpoenas Hunter. Why can’t Dems Subpoena Trump (and set up a carefully prepared perjury trap)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.