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

[jc456]

Look at all the butthurt come out.

Nancy got broke good.

Bigly

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

Liar!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

They had enough evidence and witnesses....but they were not allowed to call those witnesses in front of the Senators.

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.

What testimony from the House hearing wasn't allowed to be heard in the Senate? The Senate has no duty to investigate...that falls upon the House which is controlled by Democrats! So if more witnesses needed to be called then the Democrats in the House should have called them. They didn't do that though...did they, Care? No...they rushed impeachment through because they thought it would make Trump look bad and cost him the election. Now the polls have come out showing that Trump has GAINED in popularity since impeachment and you on the left are having a tizzy because you didn't think it would work out that way!

 

[beagle9]

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.

They had enough evidence and witnesses....but they were not allowed to call those witnesses in front of the Senators.

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.

What testimony from the House hearing wasn't allowed to be heard in the Senate? The Senate has no duty to investigate...that falls upon the House which is controlled by Democrats! So if more witnesses needed to be called then the Democrats in the House should have called them. They didn't do that though...did they, Care? No...they rushed impeachment through because they thought it would make Trump look bad and cost him the election. Now the polls have come out showing that Trump has GAINED in popularity since impeachment and you on the left are having a tizzy because you didn't think it would work out that way!

Very common sense and practical post written here. Thanks.

 

[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.

 

[hadit]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

 

[beagle9]

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.

Not stupid.... Ohh nooo they try to work it a million ways to Sunday in trying to get the outcomes they want. Has nothing to do with what's right, but everything to do with what they want.

 

[hadit]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

 

[beagle9]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

If the charges, witnesses, and evidence was strong enough, the outcomes would be different in these things, but everyone knew it was just the butthurt Dems still hoping for that last gasp of air to do Trump in. They failed miserably.

 

[WEATHER53]

Nancy doesn’t feel like having him acquitted therefore he is not
Lib101 Core Course

 

[easyt65]

Nancy is bat-shit crazy...

 

[Care4all]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

The House only is required to make their case on whether CHARGES need to be brought, as with prosecutors....they simply make charges against someone....

The Senate and a court room, is where the Managers or prosecutors have to PROVE they committed a crime or high crime and or misdemeanor in impeachment.... in a court trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, in an impeachment trial, it is also a higher bar than what it took for the house to make charges in their articles of impeachment... this is why all evidence and any new evidence is ALWAYS allowed in a trial..... EXCEPT THIS SHAM TRIAL.

 

[Care4all]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

In Clinton's trial, the DOJ had a special prosecutor doing the investigations and interviewing witnesses before a grand jury.... the House with Trump had to be their own prosecutors, their own investigators and their own grand jury getting depositions....

The three witnesses they had in the clinton impeachment trial, were done behind closed doors because the questioning and topic was about lying about blow jobs and cigars and sex.... and the questions and answers could have been X rated, and not permitted on national TV during daytime hours.... and I think this is the only reason it was done behind closed doors....is my understanding of it?

If national security is involved then I could see that behind closed doors

 

[hadit]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

The House only is required to make their case on whether CHARGES need to be brought, as with prosecutors....they simply make charges against someone....

The Senate and a court room, is where the Managers or prosecutors have to PROVE they committed a crime or high crime and or misdemeanor in impeachment.... in a court trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, in an impeachment trial, it is also a higher bar than what it took for the house to make charges in their articles of impeachment... this is why all evidence and any new evidence is ALWAYS allowed in a trial..... EXCEPT THIS SHAM TRIAL.

Except. There ONLY reason there ware any new witnesses at all was the House's incompetence in getting them.

 

[Nostra]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

In Clinton's trial, the DOJ had a special prosecutor doing the investigations and interviewing witnesses before a grand jury.... the House with Trump had to be their own prosecutors, their own investigators and their own grand jury getting depositions....

The three witnesses they had in the clinton impeachment trial, were done behind closed doors because the questioning and topic was about lying about blow jobs and cigars and sex.... and the questions and answers could have been X rated, and not permitted on national TV during daytime hours.... and I think this is the only reason it was done behind closed doors....is my understanding of it?

If national security is involved then I could see that behind closed doors

None of that is an excuse for the House not doing their job.

 

[jc456]

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.

Sarge, that fks brain washed

 

[jc456]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

In Clinton's trial, the DOJ had a special prosecutor doing the investigations and interviewing witnesses before a grand jury.... the House with Trump had to be their own prosecutors, their own investigators and their own grand jury getting depositions....

The three witnesses they had in the clinton impeachment trial, were done behind closed doors because the questioning and topic was about lying about blow jobs and cigars and sex.... and the questions and answers could have been X rated, and not permitted on national TV during daytime hours.... and I think this is the only reason it was done behind closed doors....is my understanding of it?

If national security is involved then I could see that behind closed doors

None of that is an excuse for the House not doing their job.

He doesn’t warrant your explanation. He’s a punk

 

[Care4all]

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....

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

The House only is required to make their case on whether CHARGES need to be brought, as with prosecutors....they simply make charges against someone....

The Senate and a court room, is where the Managers or prosecutors have to PROVE they committed a crime or high crime and or misdemeanor in impeachment.... in a court trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, in an impeachment trial, it is also a higher bar than what it took for the house to make charges in their articles of impeachment... this is why all evidence and any new evidence is ALWAYS allowed in a trial..... EXCEPT THIS SHAM TRIAL.

Except. There ONLY reason there ware any new witnesses at all was the House's incompetence in getting them.

Nope The new witnesses, including Bolton, AFTER the impeachment leaked out what was in his book about the Ukraine scandal, making it clear that he did have a specific connection with the scandal. This did not happen when they were calling Bolton and his assistant in the House Inquiry, they were searching to see if there were any connections of them and the Ukraine, so when they went the court route, they dropped it, because it would take years, and they did not even know they would Net anything.

but AFTER the impeachment had been done, is when the new evidence came out that Bolton had a first hand connection.

Same with Parnus, AFTER the impeachment, a court ruled that all of Parnus's emails that the SDNY had subpoenaed, could be released back to Parnus, so he could turn them over to the impeachment managers and investigators... the court's ruling to give Parnus the OK came after impeachment but before the trial....

Also, on the subpoenas the House issued for emails and documents that the Whitehouse and agencies refused to turn over.... many were released to a non profit watchdog agency via a Freedom of Information Act FOIA request..... and those were made public and gotten AFTER the impeachment but before the trial... not through their subpoena, but through the FOIA request of an outside group....

 

[Nostra]

There were THREE witnesses in Bubba's trial, and they testified behind closed doors, and only parts of their testimony was released. Do you think that standard would have been acceptable in Trump's trial?

OK were any of the three NEW witnesses, or were they people the House already questioned?

Exactly. The House makes their case, they don't demand the Senate make up for their failures.

The House only is required to make their case on whether CHARGES need to be brought, as with prosecutors....they simply make charges against someone....

The Senate and a court room, is where the Managers or prosecutors have to PROVE they committed a crime or high crime and or misdemeanor in impeachment.... in a court trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, in an impeachment trial, it is also a higher bar than what it took for the house to make charges in their articles of impeachment... this is why all evidence and any new evidence is ALWAYS allowed in a trial..... EXCEPT THIS SHAM TRIAL.

Except. There ONLY reason there ware any new witnesses at all was the House's incompetence in getting them.

Nope The new witnesses, including Bolton, AFTER the impeachment leaked out what was in his book about the Ukraine scandal, making it clear that he did have a specific connection with the scandal. This did not happen when they were calling Bolton and his assistant in the House Inquiry, they were searching to see if there were any connections of them and the Ukraine, so when they went the court route, they dropped it, because it would take years, and they did not even know they would Net anything.

but AFTER the impeachment had been done, is when the new evidence came out that Bolton had a first hand connection.

Same with Parnus, AFTER the impeachment, a court ruled that all of Parnus's emails that the SDNY had subpoenaed, could be released back to Parnus, so he could turn them over to the impeachment managers and investigators... the court's ruling to give Parnus the OK came after impeachment but before the trial....

Also, on the subpoenas the House issued for emails and documents that the Whitehouse and agencies refused to turn over.... were released to a non profit watchdog agency via a Freedom of Information Act FOIA request..... and those were made public and gotten AFTER the impeachment... not through their subpoena, but throught the FOIA of an outside group....

None of that is an excuse for the House not doing their job. They rushed to get it done by Christmas so they could go on vacation.