"New Witnesses" In An Impeachment Trial is Unconstituional

self ^ | January 28, 2020 | Uncle Sham

[semimojo]

There is no constitutional basis to then allow the House to then say, Oh, by the way, he might be guilty of that too.

I don't think anyone's asking to bring new charges.

The House cannot force the Senate to judge an accusation that is not presented as an article of impeachment. By asking for "new" evidence/testimony, this is actually what they are attempting to do because this "new" evidence/testimony is not part or parcel to the articles of impeachment currently being presented to the Senate.

New evidence is not a new accusation, it adds additional weight to an existing one.

You do realize that there's no evidence in the articles of impeachment, only accusations. Right?

[Uncle Sham]

"This would be the first without witnesses."

Not true. There are 18 witnesses cited in these articles of impeachment. Calling them for testimony in the Senate phase is the up to the Senate. This isn't a Perry Mason episode.

[semimojo]

Not true. There are 18 witnesses cited in these articles of impeachment.

The poster was arguing for no witnesses in the Senate, and this would indeed be the first time that happened.

[Rashputin]

This one hasn’t included the rational for calling other witnesses, it was a conviction the House is asking the Senate to approve. Other cases came from the House with far more than a conviction.