Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Ted Cruz floats idea of 'witness reciprocity' for Senate impeachment trial
Fox News ^ | January 15 2020 | Danielle Wallace

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 Trump’s 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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cruz; dippy0622; impeachment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

1 posted on 01/15/2020 2:29:50 AM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

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.


2 posted on 01/15/2020 2:33:25 AM PST by dp0622 (Radicals, racists Don't point fingers at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
I like this approach, since I have believed all along that the witnesses for the defense would be far more damaging to the Democrats than the prosecution witnesses would be to Trump.

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.

3 posted on 01/15/2020 2:36:06 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622
What’s this business about a simple majority vote can keep him from being able to run in 2020?

It’s 100% bullshit. It’s really kind of sad that we’ve reached the point where you can’t even believe half the sh!t people post here on FR.

4 posted on 01/15/2020 2:39:27 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Like Bolton.

No witnesses. Too risky. The rats will have a Trump hater and things can go south quickly. Just acquit.


5 posted on 01/15/2020 2:42:27 AM PST by redshawk ( I want my red balloon. ( https://youtu.be/V12H2mteniE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


6 posted on 01/15/2020 2:42:58 AM PST by dp0622 (Radicals, racists Don't point fingers at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Problem is the Dems may use the Kavenaugh approach and march out an army of “witnesses”.


7 posted on 01/15/2020 2:43:39 AM PST by knighthawk (We will always remember We will always be proud We will always be prepared so we may always be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redshawk

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.


8 posted on 01/15/2020 2:43:54 AM PST by dp0622 (Radicals, racists Don't point fingers at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dp0622
The Constitution says the Senate can remove the President from office and disqualify him from holding any public office in the future as punishment if he is convicted in an impeachment trial.

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.

9 posted on 01/15/2020 2:47:54 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: redshawk

Bolton’s 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.


10 posted on 01/15/2020 2:49:31 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


11 posted on 01/15/2020 2:50:35 AM PST by dp0622 (Radicals, racists Don't point fingers at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

That’s why the GOP should take a hard line against any witnesses who have not already testified in a House proceeding.


12 posted on 01/15/2020 2:50:50 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

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.


13 posted on 01/15/2020 2:52:43 AM PST by KobraKai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KobraKai

I’ve 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.


14 posted on 01/15/2020 2:56:06 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

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.


15 posted on 01/15/2020 2:58:42 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KobraKai

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.


16 posted on 01/15/2020 3:01:00 AM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

That is BS the president is the defendant and should be able to call whoever he needs to defend himself.


17 posted on 01/15/2020 3:03:44 AM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

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


18 posted on 01/15/2020 3:06:20 AM PST by Principled (No one will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The irony here is that in one sense it’s 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.


19 posted on 01/15/2020 3:06:38 AM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

L8r


20 posted on 01/15/2020 3:14:14 AM PST by preacher ( Journalism no longer reports news, they use news to shape our society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson