Posted on 01/15/2020 2:29:50 AM PST by knighthawk
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pitched the idea of witness reciprocity on Tuesday during a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders who convened to discuss strategy for the upcoming impeachment trial that will decide if President Trump is removed from office, Fox News has confirmed.
The idea would mean if Democrats call a witness, such as Trumps former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Republicans would in turn be allowed to call a witness.
Likely candidates to be subpoenaed by the GOP include former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the unidentified whistleblower who reported a July phone call between President Trump and the leader of Ukraine.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What’s this business about a simple majority vote can keep him from being able to run in 2020?
There’s 3 or 4 Rs that are incredibly wobbly.
I hope they’ve been told terrible fortune will come their way if they did such a thing.
Having said that, I would also say that the GOP should adamantly refuse to allow any prosecution witnesses who have not already testified in the House impeachment proceedings. Allowing this would open the door for an endless parade of assholes whose only role is to be a tool in a political hit job carried out by the Democrats with their media partners.
Its 100% bullshit. Its really kind of sad that weve reached the point where you cant even believe half the sh!t people post here on FR.
Like Bolton.
No witnesses. Too risky. The rats will have a Trump hater and things can go south quickly. Just acquit.
Yeah that’s where I found out about it, here.
Seen it a bunch of times and was just curious is all.
Why is it bullsh.t? Do you have a legal reason or just going with your gut?
does that possibility not exist AT ALL?
Did someone really just make it up? That would be awful.
Problem is the Dems may use the Kavenaugh approach and march out an army of “witnesses”.
Agreed!
A few weasel Rs are screwing things up.
Everyone should be on the horn to them.
I thought this guy Lee was solid but lately he seems like a weasel.
Some jack@ss took it upon himself to make the bizarre claim that the Senate can impose this punishment even if the President is NOT convicted ... and that scenario has now gone viral on FR.
This goes right up there with the Electoral College is going to put Hillary Clinton in the White House even though Trump won the election idiocy from December 2016.
Boltons role as a witness is of no consequence. If he has anything damaging to say about the President it would simply end up on the front page of the Washington Post.
WOW!!!
What a horrible lie to tell on here.
The articles that were posted specifically said even if he’s not convicted.
Thank you. Sheesh.
Thats why the GOP should take a hard line against any witnesses who have not already testified in a House proceeding.
This is such a cowardly approach to this whole trial process. The GOP should be calling the ‘witnesses’ they want without concern for Democrats or whatever howling the media will do. Reciprocity? Give me a damn break! If this is the case, then the Pelosi gambit worked! The House effectively manipulated the Senate into doing its bidding, even though they have no claim in the Senate process. Weak cowards, the R’s.
Ive been seeing this differently for weeks. I have said all along that NEITHER side wants to have any witnesses in a Senate trial ... and all this posturing is just a way to make the other side force the issue.
A “trial” is not based on reciprocity!
Assuming we get to a stage were witnesses can be called / “evidence” introduced (beyond the house record) - there can and SHOULD not be any reason to limit what defense witnesses President Trump is allowed to call / evidence he can present (assuming relevance). IOW if the managers call Bolton, that does not mean that Trump gets ONE witness - he must be allowed any and all that he can muster to clear his name / dispute the manager’s claims.
Yes, I certainly agree and since the President is the defendant he should be able to call who ever he want no matter who the Democrats all.
That is BS the president is the defendant and should be able to call whoever he needs to defend himself.
Tell the House that the House needs to call any witness they want to hear from...ie reopen impeachment in the House and do it right.
They did not subpoena witnesses [enforceably] in the House bc it would have given PT the right to x examine and call his own witnesses.
No prosecution witnesses in Senate unless they testified in the House! Allowing new senate witnesses changes the need for any witnesses at all in the House
The irony here is that in one sense its actually in the best interests of the DEMOCRATS to have the defense call a lot of witnesses. Because without witnesses testifying under oath, Trump will have the latitude to post Twitter messages and hold rallies to make outlandish claims outside any formal process.
L8r
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.