jknowgood
Diamond Member
Here are another 4 years acquitted president Trump!Let’s see what the voters say about the Republican “acquittal”
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here are another 4 years acquitted president Trump!Let’s see what the voters say about the Republican “acquittal”
It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
FUCK YOU BITCH. Who do you think you are talking to, some grade school simpleton? NAME THE STATUTE LAW HE BROKE if it was illegal!!!it was the President that illegally held back first hand witnesses and direct evidence
They claim the House was not allowed to oversea 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.
I admit that, you loons making things up about Trump. Your witnesse heard the call, from a friend who heard it from a friend who. Heard it from another. Well one great thing will come from this false impeachment. Four more years of Trump!They had enough evidence and witnesses....but they were not allowed to call those witnesses in front of the Senators.She has a point.... Clinton was acquitted after a real trial, with witnesses and with evidence submitted, from both sides....
There was no real trial, with evidence and witnesses in Trumps....
I don't think there was ever a criminal, civic or impeachment trial in our entire history of a Nation, that did not permit witness testimony and documented evidence, as was with this SHAM trial......
THAT will forever be the *asterisk next to the Trump Acquittal.....
they should have just allowed them.... he was going to likely be acquitted anyway, on a partisan basis, but at least it would have made the trial appear to be, a trial and not the shameful, blatant, not questionable, the fix is in SCAM that it was....
The House proceedings were a sham, therefore the Republicans had no reason to Ingratiate themselves to pelosi and Shciff just because they claimed Trump was a clear and present danger to the world.
The House voted to impeach Trump knowing that they did not have enough evidence, therefore there is no way their votes were honest and based on facts that were deliberated on. Their votes were solely based on emotion, running deep from the Russian collusion fiasco and based on opinions by federal employees who had bad Feeeeelings about Trump's foreign policy decisions.
House Democrats had every chance to take their time, gather all the witness they needed before they voted, but unfortunately, they must have wanted to go skiing over Christmas break, because they said they didnt have time. And they sure didnt want the Supreme Court to get their hands on anything.
And after the impeachment in the House NEW EVIDENCE and new witnesses came forward with MORE information that was pertinent to the trial, which they also were not allowed to call....
That is simply unheard of, unprecedented, and a total disgrace that senators, sworn to be impartial, and serve justice, find the truth, voted to ignore extremely relevant witnesses and the additional, New, material evidence.
Tell me PRECISELY what was the sham in the house impeachment..... Y'all keep repeating that statement of the House was unfair blah blah blah, that you've been told to say by your handlers, but can not actually point to what was so unfair with the House impeachment?
The house followed ALL of the impeachment rules that were in place.
Mitch said upfront, he would not be impartial, he was not seeking the truth and he would work hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, to acquit him.....
REALLY????
For goodness sake!!
What a total sham, and Embarrassment for our Nation, in front of the whole country and world.
The Senate accepted 13 witnesses and over 2800 pages of documents.NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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?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.
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 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?
and there you have it.It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
That would NEVER be allowed in a trial... prosecutors do NOT stop building their case for the trial, all the way up to the trial and during the trial.... they do not stop and twiddle their thumbs once they filed the indictment.
You can keep telling that lie forever, it will always be a lie.Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.
![]()
His campaign raised millions during the shame impeachment. My liberal friend from Vermont is embarrassed at how y'all are acting. You are turning him conservative. Keep up the good work!Sky rocketed? Has he even passed 50%, ever?That why Trumps popularity has skyrocketed during the charade?He was also acquitted.
So was OJ
They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.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....Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.
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?
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.
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.
The McGhan case for this absolute immunity claim WAS READY being slow walked through the courts, how many lawsuits do you need? It had been 10 months already with McGhan' s court case....the appeals court, the week after impeachment ruled in favor of Congress, but now it was appealed again to the SC.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"...NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
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.
Not a court, stupid. The Constitution lays out the impeachment process. The House didn’t follow the Constitution, the Senate did.It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
That would NEVER be allowed in a trial... prosecutors do NOT stop building their case for the trial, all the way up to the trial and during the trial.... they do not stop and twiddle their thumbs once they filed the indictment.
Each impeachment is different.They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.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....Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.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?
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.
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.
You really are dumb, and a serial liar.
Lol, I loved Schiff's made story about Trump's call. The shame should've been thrown out then.She's giving her insight and opinion... don't y'all always say that Trump is allowed his opinion...blah blah blah?She has a point.... Clinton was acquitted after a real trial, with witnesses and with evidence submitted, from both sides....
There was no real trial, with evidence and witnesses in Trumps....
I don't think there was ever a criminal, civic or impeachment trial in our entire history of a Nation, that did not permit witness testimony and documented evidence, as was with this SHAM trial......
THAT will forever be the *asterisk next to the Trump Acquittal.....
they should have just allowed them.... he was going to likely be acquitted anyway, on a partisan basis, but at least it would have made the trial appear to be, a trial and not the shameful, blatant, not questionable, the fix is in SCAM that it was....
Factually speaking, Trump was acquitted. Pelosi is now lying about the outcome. “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Ahhhhhh, but Nancy Pelosi isn't.... yes, I see how you are toying with it.... only Trump can mouth off....
Johnson trial had 41 live witnesses...16 were the Defense's witnesses.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....Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.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?
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.
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?
Johnson trial had 41 live witnesses...16 were the Defense's witnesses.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....Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.
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.
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?
So?Each impeachment is different.They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.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....Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.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.
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.
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.
You really are dumb, and a serial liar.
The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial had 41 live witnesses.
The Clinton trial had a special prosecutor, Ken Starr doing all of the investigating, all of the witness depositions without Whitehouse lawyers, collected and got all material evidence without obstruction from the President, and turned over the Starr report to the House and Senate.
Barr/DOJ refused a special prosecutor for the Ukraine scandal
Their case was not weak, their case was overwhelming... Lamar Alexander.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"...NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.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 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?
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.
What job? Spending years and years in court fighting for evidence that legally should have been turned over?So?Each impeachment is different.They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.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....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.
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.
You really are dumb, and a serial liar.
The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial had 41 live witnesses.
The Clinton trial had a special prosecutor, Ken Starr doing all of the investigating, all of the witness depositions without Whitehouse lawyers, collected and got all material evidence without obstruction from the President, and turned over the Starr report to the House and Senate.
Barr/DOJ refused a special prosecutor for the Ukraine scandal
None of that is an excuse for the House not doing it's job. Stop your pathetic whining.
Trump was EXONERATED.
He didn't win the election either.
Dumbfucks.