I may have gotten the impeachment thing all wrong

[boedicca]

NOPE!

the House acts as prosecutors and grand juries, they investigate and decide if high crimes and misdemeanors have met a ''probable cause'' burden needed, in order to place charges.

the Senate tries the defendant, acting as jurors and judges.

the Senate is where all evidence supporting the charges is presented and given to them, and all exculpatory evidence the defense team may have, gets presented and turned over as well.There is no rule that it has to only be evidence the House collected before the impeachment vote.

the Senate has a much greater burden than the House with their votes, because the senators can only convict with the standard of ''BEYOND a reasonable doubt'' not simply a ''probable cause'' like the House.

the trial stage is where even more evidence needs presented in order to reach that much higher burden of proof, to convict.

Holding material evidence back is not what happens in trials, presenting all the evidence you got and some, is needed by both sides, in order for Senators to get to the truth, and make their impartial, fair, just, and sound verdict.

The Senate is holding no material evidence back.

we'll see.... McConnell's rules state they have to vote on it all, one by one...

They will vote on a fishing expedition. The House Clowns want to go fishing for whatever they can find because they failed to do their job before the trial. They have no clue what any witness would say, or what evidence is in the documents. They should have gone after all that prior to the trial.

They have a pretty good idea on what they will say, since a dozen or so people already testified to it....

But, you all made the "there are no first hand witnesses" a talking point, and defense.... So I'll be damn! Guess what? Here are those first hand witnesses you claimed were needed!!! Shut up, or put up, and vote to hear them!!!

Why are you so immoral, unethical, and so bent to pathological lying? Why do you hate this country and it's president?

There are no first hand witnesses. That is a fact, and not a talking point.
If there were first hand witnesses, Schiff and Nadler would have called them.
As it stands, they didn't even want to let anyone talk to the fake Whistleblowers who started this whole hoax, because they'd be sent to jail for espionage and perjury.

There is no evidence. That is why ShiftFace quoted a made up transcript of the Ukraine call, won't let anybody interview the "whistleblower", is keeping ICIG's testimony in the deep freeze (i.e. GOP members aren't allowed to review it), and misrepresented the "Mr. Z." notes as being related to President Zelensky instead of Zlovchevsky (founder of Burisma).

 

[Olde Europe]

Slade answered that, right above... the Senate had a better shot to get them immediately.... Trump couldn't fight them as ferociously to deny them, because they are the same party, he needs them all, to save him, from himself.

In reality, the Senate has no better a chance than the House to get Mulvaney etc. to testify. The reason for that is, their testimony before the Senate would just be as damning as their testimony before the House would have been. Calling him and other Trump goons to testify serves just one purpose: Exposing the "better know less" faction for the corrupt bunch of goofs they most assuredly are. That fact becomes even more obvious since it's Goobers calling the shots in the Senate, and Trump still will exert Executive Privilege over every single word these witnesses might be inclined to say, which looks bad on TV. And that's why McConnell will work tirelessly to make sure there are not going to be witnesses - at least not in public testimony.

 

[Ame®icano]

That’s a fair argument you make. I don’t think the Dems fairly treated the Republicans in the house. I will say that both sides in the house were performing partisan gamesmanship more than conducting a fair inquiry.... however I don’t excuse bad behavior from bad behavior.

This bold is a key.

You admit that House Dems didn't treated Reps fairly, but did you complain when they did it? I don't know about you, but Dems in general cry foul only when they were held by the same standard they imposed on Reps and it bite them in the ass.

Here is an example. Dems say no appointing justices in the last year of the presidency, then complain when the same rule is used in last year of Barry's presidency.

McConnell is following a similar process to Clinton’s trial. There are a few differences so we shall see how it plays out. It appears to me like they are setting up to not allow the Dems to get the documents and witnesses they are asking for... if that’s how it ends up I think the majority of Americans are going to see this as a cover up. There is valid reason to explore that material as it directly relates to the charges at hand.

You admit that McConnell is following the same rules from Clinton impeachment. Those rules were set back then by Dems, by they are today somehow "bad behavior"? No, Dems are being held to the same standards they set when they were in power. The only reason Dems don't like those rules today are because rules are not stacked in their favor. Well, if they don't like the rules, maybe they shouldn't be setting them, or... when they setting the rules, they should think about how those rules would affect them once they're not in driver's seat.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump might allow if he felt the Republicans had his back and thought they could control it.

Screeeeech go the goalposts.

Trump said he wanted these people to testify. So call them. What are you afraid of here,. Marty? That Trump is the piece of shit we all know him to be?

So he wanted them to testify but stopped them? Please try to stick to one story.

No, he said he wanted them to testify. If he really wanted them to testify, they would have done it by now. If you've been watching the show the past 3 years, you know what Trump says is rarely connected to the truth.

So you have direct quotes from him about specific people he wanted to testify?

Not "leaks" or "sources say" references?

DAVOS, Switzerland — President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would like to see former National Security Adviser John Bolton and other top officials testify at his Senate impeachment trial, but suggested he would block their testimony.

Trump said he'd also like to see testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who he said has been asking to testify in the impeachment proceedings. But Trump then argued that he could assert executive privilege to try to block the witnesses if called, saying it could be a national security risk if they shared private conversation they had with the president.

Trump says he'd like Bolton, Pompeo to testify but will leave witnesses up to Senate

Sort of. There are dozens of links to Trump saying he wanted, or would allow, witnesses, frequently in combination with an escape clause. You've never heard him say it?

 

[martybegan]

Where was your pursuit for the truth during the House Impeachment phase?

i made plenty of critical posts and started threads about that. But my hypocrisy or fair judgement really has nothing to do with debating the topic at hand... let’s stick to the subject. I dont see you making many arguments defending the left but I’m not going to turn every topic into a hypocrisy debate.

I'm not a neutral player here, and fully admit it.

Dems started this farce, made their part of it as partisan as possible, and are now mewling for the part controlled by Republicans to be bipartisan.

Sorry, that bird don't fly.

No peace with Bonaparte.

Ok, they are partisan and you are partisan, neither of you is being fair minded... great so what’s left is simply arguing your side. So let’s stop with the personal hypocrisy critiques that you were making and stick to the substance.

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump has also called numerous times for the Bidens and Schiff to testify - the less relevance the better.

Republicans spent Tuesday telling America they want to know as little as possible about the charges against Trump. I think that will leave a mark.

 

[DOTR]

I’ve been pretty outspoken on how bad of an idea I thought this impeachment move would be for our government and our country. I saw the transition from the House to the Republican controlled Senate bringing a change in focus from Trumps actions to Biden corruption. It doesn’t appear that the Republicans are taking that route. I’ve seen the conservative media blitz working overtime on Biden corruption trying to shine the spotlight on that narrative, that tactic is in full swing, but in the capitol it looks like a race to dismissal.

It was rather astonishing to listen to the Republicans dismiss amendment after amendment after clear documentation and witnesses were presented that would add direct supporting material to the accusations.

It is very clear that the Republicans are not interested in finding the truth, seeing the facts, or even allowing the Dems to use the facts to present their case. They seem to just want to defend the president and dismiss the case. It stinks to high heaven and coming from somebody who doesn’t think Trump should be impeached I will say this path that Trump and the Reps are going down is looking more and more like a dirty cover up. When I first heard the Dems use that term it sounded like political hyperbole... After day 1 it’s sounding pretty spot on

When you first heard them it sounded like political hyperbole. It still does.

 

[Billiejeens]

The truth is that Biden is corrupt and needs to be investigated and Trump was right to ask for help from a foreign government which likely has some of the evidence.

The Truth is that Biden doesn't get a pass from investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing when he was VP just because he is now one of several candidates for president....no matter what the Democratic/Socialist Controlled Media says.

And this is why he and his crack-head son need to testify at this farce of an impeachment--if there are any witnesses at all. Defendants get to Defend themselves. Trump's phone call to the president of Ukraine was "perfect" and if the Bidens have to answer questions under oath---they will prove it!

Two separate things nothing to this impeachment
The biden corruption(s) investigation need to be separate
No reason in the world to tie one to the other.

 

[Ame®icano]

I’ve been pretty outspoken on how bad of an idea I thought this impeachment move would be for our government and our country. I saw the transition from the House to the Republican controlled Senate bringing a change in focus from Trumps actions to Biden corruption. It doesn’t appear that the Republicans are taking that route. I’ve seen the conservative media blitz working overtime on Biden corruption trying to shine the spotlight on that narrative, that tactic is in full swing, but in the capitol it looks like a race to dismissal.

It was rather astonishing to listen to the Republicans dismiss amendment after amendment after clear documentation and witnesses were presented that would add direct supporting material to the accusations.

It is very clear that the Republicans are not interested in finding the truth, seeing the facts, or even allowing the Dems to use the facts to present their case. They seem to just want to defend the president and dismiss the case. It stinks to high heaven and coming from somebody who doesn’t think Trump should be impeached I will say this path that Trump and the Reps are going down is looking more and more like a dirty cover up. When I first heard the Dems use that term it sounded like political hyperbole... After day 1 it’s sounding pretty spot on

House has impeached President and submitted two Articles to the Senate based on "overwhelming evidence".

Senate job is to review "overwhelming evidence" that those two Articles are based on, and not to investigate if there is maybe something else. The investigation is House's job, and if they didn't finish the investigation, they shouldn't have rushed with impeachment.

I didn’t see the word “trial” in your reply. You know the word from the constitution. Why not just be straight forward and honest. What you did was pure spin.


Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Trial is what's happening now in the Senate.

House investigates,, House impeach, House send Articles to Senate.

House presenting evidence to Senate IS trial. Senate review the evidence that Articles are based on, and rule based on that evidence, for that particular Article.

If you were accused for something, the prosecutors goes to trial when they have case against you. They have a case when they have enough evidence for jury to convict you. They don't go to jury and say, "we accused Slade of something, we think he did it, but since we don't have evidence, we need you to investigate for us to find that evidence."

No Slade, you don't go to trial unprepared. It doesn't matter if is court, or the Senate.

The Dems have their case and spent all day yesterday presenting that case. They are not saying that they have no evidence. They feel like they have very convincing evidence. They also feel like there is much more evidence that was blocked by Trump and they want access to it.

If Dems think there is more evidence, they should have waited for court to decide if they have right to access it. Now, is their current evidence "convincing" its up to the Senate to decide. I don't think it's convincing, since they're asking, rather demanding from Senate, to investigate, which is not their job.

 

[martybegan]

Screeeeech go the goalposts.

Trump said he wanted these people to testify. So call them. What are you afraid of here,. Marty? That Trump is the piece of shit we all know him to be?

So he wanted them to testify but stopped them? Please try to stick to one story.

No, he said he wanted them to testify. If he really wanted them to testify, they would have done it by now. If you've been watching the show the past 3 years, you know what Trump says is rarely connected to the truth.

So you have direct quotes from him about specific people he wanted to testify?

Not "leaks" or "sources say" references?

DAVOS, Switzerland — President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would like to see former National Security Adviser John Bolton and other top officials testify at his Senate impeachment trial, but suggested he would block their testimony.

Trump said he'd also like to see testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who he said has been asking to testify in the impeachment proceedings. But Trump then argued that he could assert executive privilege to try to block the witnesses if called, saying it could be a national security risk if they shared private conversation they had with the president.

Trump says he'd like Bolton, Pompeo to testify but will leave witnesses up to Senate

Sort of. There are dozens of links to Trump saying he wanted, or would allow, witnesses, frequently in combination with an escape clause. You've never heard him say it?

A bunch of "like tos", and "maybes" and "let the senate figure it outs".

He hasn't said what he would do, but what he might do.

Are you going to impeach him for this now?

LOL

 

[joaquinmiller]

i made plenty of critical posts and started threads about that. But my hypocrisy or fair judgement really has nothing to do with debating the topic at hand... let’s stick to the subject. I dont see you making many arguments defending the left but I’m not going to turn every topic into a hypocrisy debate.

I'm not a neutral player here, and fully admit it.

Dems started this farce, made their part of it as partisan as possible, and are now mewling for the part controlled by Republicans to be bipartisan.

Sorry, that bird don't fly.

No peace with Bonaparte.

Ok, they are partisan and you are partisan, neither of you is being fair minded... great so what’s left is simply arguing your side. So let’s stop with the personal hypocrisy critiques that you were making and stick to the substance.

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

Absolutely! Republicans should always blame their own behavior on someone else - Democrats, if possible.

 

[The Original Tree]

i made plenty of critical posts and started threads about that. But my hypocrisy or fair judgement really has nothing to do with debating the topic at hand... let’s stick to the subject. I dont see you making many arguments defending the left but I’m not going to turn every topic into a hypocrisy debate.

I'm not a neutral player here, and fully admit it.

Dems started this farce, made their part of it as partisan as possible, and are now mewling for the part controlled by Republicans to be bipartisan.

Sorry, that bird don't fly.

No peace with Bonaparte.

Ok, they are partisan and you are partisan, neither of you is being fair minded... great so what’s left is simply arguing your side. So let’s stop with the personal hypocrisy critiques that you were making and stick to the substance.

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

Following the rules and Constitution is playing fair, which is something that infuriates The Radical DemNazi Party to no end.

 

[boedicca]

Twoo Dis

They are not here to steal one election. They are here to steal two elections. It’s buried in the small print of the ridiculous articles of impeachment. They want to remove the President Trump from the ballot. They won’t tell you that. They don’t have the guts to say it directly, but that’s exactly what they are here to do.

They are asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as Americans, the right to choose our president. In an election year. It’s never been done before. It shouldn’t be done. Now, the reason it’s never been done is because no one ever thought that it would be a good idea for a country, for our children, for our grandchildren to try to remove a president from a ballot, to deny the American people the right to vote based on a fraudulent investigation conducted in secret with no rights.

- Pat Cipollone

Schiff Circus Shifts to Senate, Demands Do-Over - Victory Girls Blog

 

[Care4all]

Trump said he wanted these people to testify. So call them. What are you afraid of here,. Marty? That Trump is the piece of shit we all know him to be?

So he wanted them to testify but stopped them? Please try to stick to one story.

He claimed the accusers had only second hand witnesses, blah blah blah, no first hand witnesses, blah blah blah as his defense.

Well hell's bells, here are the first hand witnesses, just vote to hear them. Put up, or shut up.... now is the time.

Ask your House Clowns why they didn't follow protocol to get them to testify before they shut down their "overwhelming" investigation.

Spare answered that, right above... the Senate had a better shot to get them immediately.... Trump couldn't fight them as ferociously to deny them, because they are the same party, he needs them all, to save him, from himself.

Executive Privilege is the same regarding House subpoenas and Senate subpoenas. The WH can challenge both and go to the courts for a ruling.

Once again you are trying to put the job of the House on the Senate. Your House Clowns refused to follow protocol. That's on them, not Trump, not the Senate.

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump said he wanted these people to testify. So call them. What are you afraid of here,. Marty? That Trump is the piece of shit we all know him to be?

So he wanted them to testify but stopped them? Please try to stick to one story.

No, he said he wanted them to testify. If he really wanted them to testify, they would have done it by now. If you've been watching the show the past 3 years, you know what Trump says is rarely connected to the truth.

So you have direct quotes from him about specific people he wanted to testify?

Not "leaks" or "sources say" references?

DAVOS, Switzerland — President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would like to see former National Security Adviser John Bolton and other top officials testify at his Senate impeachment trial, but suggested he would block their testimony.

Trump said he'd also like to see testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who he said has been asking to testify in the impeachment proceedings. But Trump then argued that he could assert executive privilege to try to block the witnesses if called, saying it could be a national security risk if they shared private conversation they had with the president.

Trump says he'd like Bolton, Pompeo to testify but will leave witnesses up to Senate

Sort of. There are dozens of links to Trump saying he wanted, or would allow, witnesses, frequently in combination with an escape clause. You've never heard him say it?

A bunch of "like tos", and "maybes" and "let the senate figure it outs".

He hasn't said what he would do, but what he might do.

Are you going to impeach him for this now?

LOL

No, he's already being impeached.

LOL back atcha.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not a neutral player here, and fully admit it.

Dems started this farce, made their part of it as partisan as possible, and are now mewling for the part controlled by Republicans to be bipartisan.

Sorry, that bird don't fly.

No peace with Bonaparte.

Ok, they are partisan and you are partisan, neither of you is being fair minded... great so what’s left is simply arguing your side. So let’s stop with the personal hypocrisy critiques that you were making and stick to the substance.

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

Absolutely! Republicans should always blame their own behavior on someone else - Democrats, if possible.

Sorry, Dems in the house tipped the scales first in this process. All on them, none on us.

 

[martybegan]

So he wanted them to testify but stopped them? Please try to stick to one story.

No, he said he wanted them to testify. If he really wanted them to testify, they would have done it by now. If you've been watching the show the past 3 years, you know what Trump says is rarely connected to the truth.

So you have direct quotes from him about specific people he wanted to testify?

Not "leaks" or "sources say" references?

DAVOS, Switzerland — President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would like to see former National Security Adviser John Bolton and other top officials testify at his Senate impeachment trial, but suggested he would block their testimony.

Trump said he'd also like to see testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who he said has been asking to testify in the impeachment proceedings. But Trump then argued that he could assert executive privilege to try to block the witnesses if called, saying it could be a national security risk if they shared private conversation they had with the president.

Trump says he'd like Bolton, Pompeo to testify but will leave witnesses up to Senate

Sort of. There are dozens of links to Trump saying he wanted, or would allow, witnesses, frequently in combination with an escape clause. You've never heard him say it?

A bunch of "like tos", and "maybes" and "let the senate figure it outs".

He hasn't said what he would do, but what he might do.

Are you going to impeach him for this now?

LOL

No, he's already being impeached.

LOL back atcha.

I doubt that will stop Dems from trying again if he wins in 2020 and they keep the house somehow.

or win it back in 2022.

He's been impeached on 2 articles, note they actually debated 4, but the other two were too crazy for even Dems (and thats pretty crazy)

 

[Olde Europe]

Absolutely! Republicans should always blame their own behavior on someone else - Democrats, if possible.

Ain't that right? Why shouldn't House Democrats get the blame for following the same Committee rules House Republicans set in 2015, when they controlled the House?

Personal responsibility is for suckers.

 

[RealDave]

Ok, they are partisan and you are partisan, neither of you is being fair minded... great so what’s left is simply arguing your side. So let’s stop with the personal hypocrisy critiques that you were making and stick to the substance.

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

Absolutely! Republicans should always blame their own behavior on someone else - Democrats, if possible.

Sorry, Dems in the house tipped the scales first in this process. All on them, none on us.

The Republicans had their opportunities to ask questions.

 

[RealDave]

Twoo Dis

They are not here to steal one election. They are here to steal two elections. It’s buried in the small print of the ridiculous articles of impeachment. They want to remove the President Trump from the ballot. They won’t tell you that. They don’t have the guts to say it directly, but that’s exactly what they are here to do.

They are asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as Americans, the right to choose our president. In an election year. It’s never been done before. It shouldn’t be done. Now, the reason it’s never been done is because no one ever thought that it would be a good idea for a country, for our children, for our grandchildren to try to remove a president from a ballot, to deny the American people the right to vote based on a fraudulent investigation conducted in secret with no rights.

- Pat Cipollone

Schiff Circus Shifts to Senate, Demands Do-Over - Victory Girls Blog

So says the same assfucks that evidently stole Clinton's 1996 election?