CNN Anchor Tells Nancy Pelosi That Trump Was Acquitted — She Interrupts, Claims He Wasn’t

[RetiredGySgt]

They didn’t even send Bolton a subpoena.

Your excuses for them not doing their job isn’t working. They rushed it so they could go on vacation.

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

 

[Nostra]

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

Dude, you are banging your head against a retarded wall..........and you would get a more coherent response from that retarded wall.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

Dude, you are banging your head against a retarded wall..........and you would get a more coherent response from that retarded wall.

I will not let her LIE repeatedly about how an Impeachment works. There may actually be people that read this stuff that do not know she is LYING.

 

[BS Filter]

They didn’t even send Bolton a subpoena.

Your excuses for them not doing their job isn’t working. They rushed it so they could go on vacation.

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

The charges were bogus. Please vote for the Democrat candidate for President. They're gonna need every vote they can get.

 

[Care4all]

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

I see you are STILL IGNORING my FACTS and me calling you out for either being a liar or to stupid to breed.

 

[Care4all]

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

The charges were bogus. Please vote for the Democrat candidate for President. They're gonna need every vote they can get.

there isn't much of a choice, but to vote for whomever that the dem candidate might be.... kinda like how yall felt about voting for Trump, because of Hillary fear....!

 

[Care4all]

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

I see you are STILL IGNORING my FACTS and me calling you out for either being a liar or to stupid to breed.

what facts RGS? PLEASE repeat them or direct me to the post.... it's usually me, debating like 5 to 10 of all of you, so I definitely do not get to respond to all the posters and posts directed at me....

 

[Crixus]

Trump broke Box Wine Nancy.



Chief Justice Roberts:

"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is
hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles"

Like they say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[BS Filter]

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

The charges were bogus. Please vote for the Democrat candidate for President. They're gonna need every vote they can get.

there isn't much of a choice, but to vote for whomever that the dem candidate might be.... kinda like how yall felt about voting for Trump, because of Hillary fear....!

Republicans had good candidates. Anyone other than a Democrat is a good candidate.

 

[Care4all]

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

The charges were bogus. Please vote for the Democrat candidate for President. They're gonna need every vote they can get.

there isn't much of a choice, but to vote for whomever that the dem candidate might be.... kinda like how yall felt about voting for Trump, because of Hillary fear....!

Republicans had good candidates. Anyone other than a Democrat is a good candidate.

Yes BS, I know how you view it, you've been very clear on where you stand since you've come to this board and made your first post....

 

[Care4all]

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

ok, is this it?
--------------
there have only been 3 presidential impeachment trials in 220 years RGS, there are no SET rules, all 3 were completely different from each other.

But the whole world knows what a fair and 'justice served' TRIAL is in criminal and civil court, and that's what people envision as a basis of an impeachment trial with changes like a jury of 100 senators instead of 12, a guilty verdict with 67, instead of 12.... those kind of changes.

Clinton's impeachment had a special prosecutor who had done the investigating...got his subpoenas answered and complied to, got all witness sworn depositions in front of a grand jury behind closed doors etc...

Trump's did not have a special prosecutor in to the Ukraine scandal so the house had to do the investigating and depositions themselves and Trump fought all subpoenas of documents and witnesses....

if Barr had appointed a prosecutor as asked, then Pres Trump could not have obstructed and stonewalled in the manner that he did with the house subpoenas....

And in Andrew Johnson's impeachment, there was aTrial with TONS OF WITNESSES....41 WITNESSES


On March 2, 1868, the House approved the first nine articles of impeachment with the final two articles approved the following day. Amidst tremendous public attention and press coverage, the case moved to the Senate.

Quickly, the Senate debated and adopted an updated set of 25 impeachment rules, setting the stage for the first presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. With Chief Justice Salmon Chase presiding, the trial began on March 5, 1868. On the advice of counsel, the president did not appear at the trial, although he did agree to a number of press interviews during the trial process.


***

The trial of the president, including testimony of 25 prosecution and 16 defense witnesses, became a public spectacle as well as a constitutional crisis. It gave the grand orators of the Senate a chance to dazzle the public with their speaking skills, and the trial was conducted mostly in open session before a packed gallery. During final deliberations on the 11 articles of impeachment, however, the Senate cleared the gallery and closed the doors.
U.S. Senate: The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States
------------------------------------

So I disagree with your contention that the Senate only hears from witnesses that the House already interviewed....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

I see you are STILL IGNORING my FACTS and me calling you out for either being a liar or to stupid to breed.

what facts RGS? PLEASE repeat them or direct me to the post.... it's usually me, debating like 5 to 10 of all of you, so I definitely do not get to respond to all the posters and posts directed at me....

201 is the latest and NO I don't believe you missed the repeated posts on the same subject by me in this thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

ok, is this it?
--------------
there have only been 3 presidential impeachment trials in 220 years RGS, there are no SET rules, all 3 were completely different from each other.

But the whole world knows what a fair and 'justice served' TRIAL is in criminal and civil court, and that's what people envision as a basis of an impeachment trial with changes like a jury of 100 senators instead of 12, a guilty verdict with 67, instead of 12.... those kind of changes.

Clinton's impeachment had a special prosecutor who had done the investigating...got his subpoenas answered and complied to, got all witness sworn depositions in front of a grand jury behind closed doors etc...

Trump's did not have a special prosecutor in to the Ukraine scandal so the house had to do the investigating and depositions themselves and Trump fought all subpoenas of documents and witnesses....

if Barr had appointed a prosecutor as asked, then Pres Trump could not have obstructed and stonewalled in the manner that he did with the house subpoenas....

And in Andrew Johnson's impeachment, there was aTrial with TONS OF WITNESSES....41 WITNESSES


On March 2, 1868, the House approved the first nine articles of impeachment with the final two articles approved the following day. Amidst tremendous public attention and press coverage, the case moved to the Senate.

Quickly, the Senate debated and adopted an updated set of 25 impeachment rules, setting the stage for the first presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. With Chief Justice Salmon Chase presiding, the trial began on March 5, 1868. On the advice of counsel, the president did not appear at the trial, although he did agree to a number of press interviews during the trial process.


***

The trial of the president, including testimony of 25 prosecution and 16 defense witnesses, became a public spectacle as well as a constitutional crisis. It gave the grand orators of the Senate a chance to dazzle the public with their speaking skills, and the trial was conducted mostly in open session before a packed gallery. During final deliberations on the 11 articles of impeachment, however, the Senate cleared the gallery and closed the doors.
U.S. Senate: The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States
------------------------------------

So I disagree with your contention that the Senate only hears from witnesses that the House already interviewed....

Bullshit be specific now and show us where in the 1868 one the Senate called unquestioned witnesses. And then explain how not doing your job is excused cause it might be hard and take some time? The Clinton impeachment is the format they used now be specific and list for us the witnesses that got called that the House did not already hear from. It is NOT the Senates job to unearth NEW witnesses NEVER HAS BEEN. Your claim it must is ignorant and stupid to boot. ALL the Senate does is hears the evidence from the House managers at no time has the Senate ever dug deeper then the evidence lawfully presented by the HOUSE from their official investigation. You do remember the process right? The House investigates and then presents its evidence to the Senate. The Senate hears the evidence and may call a witness already questioned for clarification, they then make a ruling on the guilt or INNOCENCE of the President on all the charges.

You lie every time you claim the Senate did not do its job, the House did not do ITS job and it is NOT the Senates responsibility to investigate the charges. Just to Hear the evidence and make a ruling.

You also LIE when you claim the requested witnesses were new ones that the House JUST found out about.

 

[Care4all]

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry does not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Only when executive privilege is invoked. You remember that right? The only way around it is if a CRIMINAL act occurred , now be specific and cite for us the CRIMINAL ACT President Trump was charged with in the Impeachment?

 

[Care4all]

Bullshit be specific now and show us where in the 1868 one the Senate called unquestioned witnesses.

Without even searching, the Defense called 16 of their own witness that would not have been part of the House's witnesses...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bullshit be specific now and show us where in the 1868 one the Senate called unquestioned witnesses.

Without even searching, the Defense called 16 of their own witness that would not have been part of the House's witnesses...

To be specific the house does not interview defense witnesses. And to the point Trump's defense never ask for any.

 

[bripat9643]

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

Trump hasn't broken any laws, dingbat.

 

[hadit]

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th

It's amazing how many people only understand how the process works when they get the outcome they want. Just because you don't like the outcome it doesn't change the outcome Trump was acquitted no asterisk no if's and's or butt's end of story. I have seen plenty of trials and investgations in and out of the political world that didn't go how I wanted them to or thought they should that's life the House did it's job the Senate did it's job you don't like the final result tough shit.

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?