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

[toobfreak]

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"

You cannot expect the Left to allow facts to ever get in the way of dogma, and Nancy is the figurehead of leftist dogma. It kept them from winning in 2016 and it will keep them from winning this year. In her mind, Trump cannot be acquitted unless SHE acquits him and she never will, just as in her mind, Trump isn't even a "legitimate" president.

In the Left's mind, the whole GOP is illegitimate with the DNC the only real government, their having been ousted by the "Trump Coup."

But then, Nancy obviously doesn't want to understand how our laws actually work, the same ignorance which permitted her to believe she could just "give" her subcommittee subpoena powers over Trump without first having the House hold a vote on a resolution GIVING the House that power! Then impeaching Trump for not agreeing to give up the separation of powers privileges guaranteed him by the Constitution to resist subpoenas which were illegal in their very nature.

 

[beagle9]

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"

You cannot expect the Left to allow facts to ever get in the way of dogma, and Nancy is the figurehead of leftist dogma. It kept them from winning in 2016 and it will keep them from winning this year. In her mind, Trump cannot be acquitted unless SHE acquits him and she never will, just as in her mind, Trump isn't even a "legitimate" president.

In the Left's mind, the whole GOP is illegitimate with the DNC the only real government, their having been ousted by the "Trump Coup."

But then, Nancy obviously doesn't want to understand how our laws actually work, the same ignorance which permitted her to believe she could just "give" her subcommittee subpoena powers over Trump without first having the House hold a vote on a resolution GIVING the House that power! Then impeaching Trump for not agreeing to give up the separation of powers privileges guaranteed him by the Constitution to resist subpoenas which were illegal in their very nature.

Oh she knew better, but TDS dulls the senses, and destroys all rational thinking. TDS is real.

 

[Oldstyle]

That is no excuse for the House not doing it’s job because they were in a hurry to go on vacation.

Nostra....are you Italian descent? Nostra, as in La Cosa Nostra?

The House could have waited the 3 weeks, and done it after their break.... nothing was going to be done till after break regardless of doing it before or after the break...so yea, they could have waited till after break....

BUT KNOW, that the House had enough evidence to convict when they voted to impeach him.

The Senate was not likely to convict just on a partisan basis...which they had to be aware of that...

THE NEW, additional, and first hand EVIDENCE that came out after the impeachment, they were completely unaware of it even having the opportunity of coming out at the time of the impeachment.... it just fell in their lap!

This new first hand witnesses and document emails that got released through court orders afterwards, and Bolton's leaked book,

it truly would have given a real shot at the 20 Senators voting with the Dems to remove him from office.... not a guarantee, but a real shot at it even with the blind partisanship... because it's pretty damning first hand evidence... we the people would have seen it nation wide, on tv, which would have made it harder for the Republican senators to all walk the Lock Step fox trot, that they so easily had walked....

Once again, you are feebly trying to make excuses for the House refusing to do their job.

And the only “lockstepping” in the Senate was by the Dimwingers, but don’t let facts get in the way of your lies.

What job did they refuse to do...? Go to court for years because of the president's stonewalling by tying witnesses and evidence up in the courts?

that's all bull crud.

When we already have precedence from the Supreme Court, witnesses and TAPES, like in the NIXON TAPES of his personal doings with his full administration, could NOT be held back from the impeachment inquirers on the basis of Executive privilege.... period.

Just think about it, there would be no reason for the Founders to even put impeachment in to the Constitution, if the President could legally stonewall the impeachment investigation for months or years by denying subpoenas and admin witnesses, and then tying it up in the court for months or years....to get the subpoena witnesses and evidence....

It would completely nullify the power given to the House on Impeachment....

You don't understand the law, Care! The Supreme Court ruled that the Nixon Tapes could not be withheld from Congressional investigators because they were evidence of a CRIME and that took precedence over Executive Privilege. There is no crime here. There is a Party in search of a crime because they don't like the President that the people elected. The Supreme Court DID NOT rule that absent of a crime...that a President has zero right to Executive Privilege!

They were POSSIBLY evidence of a crime, they did not know for certain, until they heard the tapes..

the same thing with the Ukraine stuff they needed...

No, the Watergate Nixon tapes were evidence of a cover-up of a REAL crime...the burglary that took place at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex! Prosecutors believed that the tapes were related to the crime that took place (which they were!) and took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that a evidence in a criminal trial takes precedence over Executive Privilege. Once again, there is no "crime" that took place so the Nixon ruling doesn't apply. Trump has just as much right to Executive Privilege as the Presidents that preceded him and the others that follow!

 

[Care4all]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

If the Dims didn't have a solid case, they had no business sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. If they did have a solid case, then why did they need more witnesses? Asking for them is just an admission that the had no case. Either way, the place for witness testimony is in the House inquiry, not in the Senate. Anyone whining about calling witnesses in the Senate is simply a douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

Justice would be where scum like you are given multiple slaps across the face.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

He's not guilty of anything, so what needs to be taken away?

 

[WEATHER53]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

Justice would be where scum like you are given multiple slaps across the face.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

He's not guilty of anything, so what needs to be taken away?

If he suffers for no reason they will still feel good about it.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

Justice would be where scum like you are given multiple slaps across the face.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

He's not guilty of anything, so what needs to be taken away?

If he suffers for no reason they will still feel good about it.

They are regurgitating talking points. They can't even explain what they mean.

 

[Care4all]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

LOL you damn retard. It is not the JOB of the JURY to call witnesses that is the defense and prosecutors job, you know the House and the defense lawyers. God you get stupider with every post.

 

[007]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Good Lord care... are you really this IGNORANT about how that all works?

Seriously, give the democrat propaganda wing a rest and expand what you hear and read. You have really gotten dumber than dirt.

 

[hadit]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

 

[hadit]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

 

[Care4all]

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

 

[toobfreak]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.
That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Um, sorry, you stupid clod, did you even bother to watch the Senate Trial? That is exactly what they did, they heard from something like 13 or 17 witness's testimony and literal mountains of evidence. Where were you?

 

[Care4all]

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?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It wasn't their lacking, it was a Titanium Brick wall of stonewalling by the white house...an abuse of presidential power on an illegal basis of a fabricated right that they called "absolute immunity"...
No one showed up for House questioning, no records were turned over to congress.

The house, had been trying for nearly a year to get Don McGhann to testify on the Mueller Obstruction allegations of the President.

The house had won the case, all the way up the Appeal chain, but now the President is appealing that, to the Supreme Court....if they take the case, it will be a year and a half of stalling, stonewalling, tying it up in the courts...

Justice delayed, is justice denied.....

 

[Care4all]

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.
That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Um, sorry, you stupid clod, did you even bother to watch the Senate Trial? That is exactly what they did, they heard from something like 13 or 17 witness's testimony and literal mountains of evidence. Where were you?

Where were you??? Remember, the presidents argument was the house only had HEARSAY..... when it was the President that illegally held back first hand witnesses and direct evidence from being interviewed and turned over on a made up, never existed right that they called, "Absolute Immunity" for any and all white house/executive branch records and any and all of his Admin from testifying..... which was utter bull crud....

They claim the House was not allowed to over see and investigate the President or executive branch.... we the people have no right to know any thing they are doing.... the President and admin and Cabinet is above the law.... lawless.

 

[hadit]

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

Be honest, what you want is actually NEW witnesses and evidence that the House failed to obtain. The House is supposed to present their evidence and witness testimony and the Senate is supposed to vote on it. What you're demanding (but won't get) is a circus.

Which Senate impeachment trial heard witnesses that were NOT heard in the House?

 

[hadit]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It wasn't their lacking, it was a Titanium Brick wall of stonewalling by the white house...an abuse of presidential power on an illegal basis of a fabricated right that they called "absolute immunity"...
No one showed up for House questioning, no records were turned over to congress.

The house, had been trying for nearly a year to get Don McGhann to testify on the Mueller Obstruction allegations of the President.

The house had won the case, all the way up the Appeal chain, but now the President is appealing that, to the Supreme Court....if they take the case, it will be a year and a half of stalling, stonewalling, tying it up in the courts...

Justice delayed, is justice denied.....

They didn't even try to get most of what you're demanding (but won't get). Trump said, "Get lost", and they said, "Okay". Along the way, if they could prove their case that Trump really did abuse his power, they would have had a stronger case. As it is, their case was weak, but they forced it through because it was so important to do it fast that they did nothing for a month.