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

[Care4all]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

 

[hadit]

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....

IOW, they were incompetent at their jobs.

 

[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

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

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

Dudette, are you wearing your pink underwear tonight?

 

[Care4all]

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....

IOW, they were incompetent at their jobs.

ahhh, so you are giving the OJ defense....

guilty as hell, but the prosecutors made some mistakes, therefore, he deserved to get away with his savage, grotesque, vicious murders... I see...

 

[easyt65]

Pelosi is bat-shit crazy.

 

[Care4all]

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.

they were heading on vacation with or without an impeachment???

 

[Nostra]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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

 

[Care4all]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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....

 

[Nostra]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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.

 

[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?

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.

Wrong you lying LUNATIC, READ the damn powers and responsibilities of the separate Houses in regards Impeachment. The House NOT the SENATE investigates all the Senate does is hears the evidence and renders a verdict. I keep asking you to name one witness EVER called before the Senate for an Impeachment that was not first interviewed by the House.

 

[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?

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

I KEEP asking you to name a single witness called before the Senate that was not FIRST interviewed BY THE HOUSE.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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....

You are LYING again. ALL the witnesses the House wanted the Senate to call the HOUSE knew about AND DID NOT call themselves. Which is their JOB. Guess what stupid? The supposed prosecutors are the HOUSE. the HOUSE not the SENATE is charged with gathering ALL evidence and interviewing ALL witnesses. The excuse given for not calling those people was that it would take to long for it to work through the COURTS. You can not even keep straight what your own side claims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

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

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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

 

[Care4all]

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

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

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

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

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

it just ain't gonna happen...

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



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

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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....

 

[Oldstyle]

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
Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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!

 

[Nostra]

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
Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

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

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

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

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....

They didn’t even send Bolton a subpoena.

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

 

[WEATHER53]

We’ve got a slam dunk case with irrefutable evidence but we need someone to find it for us.

 

[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...

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....

They didn’t even send Bolton a subpoena.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[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...

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...

 

[JusticeHammer]

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....

Face it, you idiots lost.