I may have gotten the impeachment thing all wrong

[joaquinmiller]

If Repubs really believed the Democrats impeachment was dishonest or unfair, you wouldn't be able to stop them from calling witnesses to "correct" the record.

When is knowing less, or learning less, ever a good argument? Other than when one wants to hide the truth, of course.

Apparently you have not been paying attention. The House Clowns played all kinds of videos of their witnesses they used to put together their "overwhelming case".

Please get up to speed before posting further.

The trial is in the Senate. The Clowns now in question are the Republican Senators with tape over their eyes, plugs in their ears, and heads up their asses. You know, like you and Marty, except those clowns are office holders. You ought to quit blaming the Republican resistance to honesty on other people.

So, anyway, when is knowing less ever a good argument? Other than when one wants to hide the truth, of course.

Your ignorance of the respective roles of the House and Senate regarding impeachment isn't my problem.

Yes, if your problems were related to that, you wouldn't have a problem.

So you agree your ignorance isn't my problem.

Got it.

A closer reading would have shown you that I agreed your problem is not my ignorance.

 

[joaquinmiller]

That sounds really groovy to the thoroughly programmed, but it's nonsense.

1. Trump didn't abuse power.
2. Even if he did, it's not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

If anyone is abusing power in this situation, it's the Legislative Dems.

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

It's sufficient, convincing and uncontested. Sadly, that won't have anything to do with the way Senators will vote.

It's sufficient and convincing only to those who are trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. Uncontested? I don't think so.

Please explain, what would be the point of Trump asking for dirt against Biden when Biden himself boasted before the Council on Foreign Relations that he had forced the Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion?

That is common knowledge. Why should Trump have to pay Ukraine for it?

Vice President Biden’s clear, open admission that he did what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing is total proof of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party.

Quick question.

Why don’t you want people involved to testify before Senate, exonerate President and embarrass Democrat’s sham impeachment?

Because Democrats!

 

[AntonToo]

Abuse of Power is not a character flaw. Abuse of American foreign policy for personal political gain is not a character flaw.

It's an impeachable offense against this country by our Presdient.

That sounds really groovy to the thoroughly programmed, but it's nonsense.

1. Trump didn't abuse power.
2. Even if he did, it's not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

If anyone is abusing power in this situation, it's the Legislative Dems.

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

Yes evidence Moron, a mountain of evidence.

Then you have no reason to ask Senate to do House's job and investigate. You have mountain of evidence, shitstain.

Senate’s job is to conduct a proper trial. To look at all relevant evidence and to come to a fair conclusion.

To say that they don’t want to hear or see relevant evidence is to admit a sham.

 

[AntonToo]

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

It's sufficient, convincing and uncontested. Sadly, that won't have anything to do with the way Senators will vote.

It's sufficient and convincing only to those who are trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. Uncontested? I don't think so.

Please explain, what would be the point of Trump asking for dirt against Biden when Biden himself boasted before the Council on Foreign Relations that he had forced the Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion?

That is common knowledge. Why should Trump have to pay Ukraine for it?

Vice President Biden’s clear, open admission that he did what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing is total proof of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party.

Quick question.

Why don’t you want people involved to testify before Senate, exonerate President and embarrass Democrat’s sham impeachment?

Because Democrats!

because Democrats...what??

 

[Olde Europe]

You're right. Then again, I'm old enough to remember when people would be embarrassed at being caught lying.

No need to brag about your age, or your long memory, for that matter, since that was yesterday. It doesn't apply to all, though, and never did.

 

[joaquinmiller]

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

It's sufficient, convincing and uncontested. Sadly, that won't have anything to do with the way Senators will vote.

It's sufficient and convincing only to those who are trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. Uncontested? I don't think so.

Please explain, what would be the point of Trump asking for dirt against Biden when Biden himself boasted before the Council on Foreign Relations that he had forced the Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion?

That is common knowledge. Why should Trump have to pay Ukraine for it?

Vice President Biden’s clear, open admission that he did what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing is total proof of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party.

Quick question.

Why don’t you want people involved to testify before Senate, exonerate President and embarrass Democrat’s sham impeachment?

Because Democrats!

because Democrats...what??

Being facetious.

They have no good reason. Now they pretend hiding evidence is a new talking point, rather than the basis of the 2nd Article of Impeachment.

 

[Ame®icano]

That sounds really groovy to the thoroughly programmed, but it's nonsense.

1. Trump didn't abuse power.
2. Even if he did, it's not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

If anyone is abusing power in this situation, it's the Legislative Dems.

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

It's sufficient, convincing and uncontested. Sadly, that won't have anything to do with the way Senators will vote.

It's sufficient and convincing only to those who are trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. Uncontested? I don't think so.

Please explain, what would be the point of Trump asking for dirt against Biden when Biden himself boasted before the Council on Foreign Relations that he had forced the Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion?

That is common knowledge. Why should Trump have to pay Ukraine for it?

Vice President Biden’s clear, open admission that he did what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing is total proof of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party.

Quick question.

Why don’t you want people involved to testify before Senate, exonerate President and embarrass Democrat’s sham impeachment?

I haven't said I don't want to. During House impeachment inquiry I said I want this to go to Senate and have all involved to testify, and that means ALL. I was hoping that would happen, so everyone's dirt would be investigated and exposed, not just Trump's.

Senate decided to play differently, not to do House's job and apply the same rules used in Clinton impeachment. They decided to look at the evidence that Articles are based on and try president based on that. Only if Senate need more evidence that support Articles as they're written, Senate should call for witnesses, not because House want them to do so.

 

[Fang]

Can we investigate the DNC fixing the 2016 Primary for Hillary and screwing Bernie while were at it?

More diversions....let’s have Trump answer to the charges

Nope. Doing so only lends credence to this political hit-job, baseless impeachment scam. The next Democratic president has an excellent change of being impeached now if Republicans have the House. Great job wasting our hard-earned (for those of us that work) tax dollars because Democrats are whiny bitches that can't handle the results of an election.

TRUMP/PENCE 2020!!!

 

[Nostra]

That sounds really groovy to the thoroughly programmed, but it's nonsense.

1. Trump didn't abuse power.
2. Even if he did, it's not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

If anyone is abusing power in this situation, it's the Legislative Dems.

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

It's sufficient, convincing and uncontested. Sadly, that won't have anything to do with the way Senators will vote.

It's sufficient and convincing only to those who are trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. Uncontested? I don't think so.

Please explain, what would be the point of Trump asking for dirt against Biden when Biden himself boasted before the Council on Foreign Relations that he had forced the Ukrainian President to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion?

That is common knowledge. Why should Trump have to pay Ukraine for it?

Vice President Biden’s clear, open admission that he did what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing is total proof of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party.

Quick question.

Why don’t you want people involved to testify before Senate, exonerate President and embarrass Democrat’s sham impeachment?

Because the Senate's role is a jury. They don't do the investigation. That is what the Constitution says is the responsibility of the House.

 

[Ame®icano]

That sounds really groovy to the thoroughly programmed, but it's nonsense.

1. Trump didn't abuse power.
2. Even if he did, it's not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

If anyone is abusing power in this situation, it's the Legislative Dems.

You asserting that Trump did nothing is wrong is nice and all, but of course that is not what the evidence and Trump's indictment says.

What you assert is not a serious alternative to a proper TRIAL.

"evidence"

LOL

Is it overwhelming?

Yes evidence Moron, a mountain of evidence.

Then you have no reason to ask Senate to do House's job and investigate. You have mountain of evidence, shitstain.

Senate’s job is to conduct a proper trial. To look at all relevant evidence and to come to a fair conclusion.

To say that they don’t want to hear or see relevant evidence is to admit a sham.

Senate is conducting proper trial. They are looking at all evidence as we speak that House based their impeachment on. Since evidence presented by House is "overwhelming", Senate wont have problem to come to fair conclusion.

 

[Nostra]

Apparently you have not been paying attention. The House Clowns played all kinds of videos of their witnesses they used to put together their "overwhelming case".

Please get up to speed before posting further.

The trial is in the Senate. The Clowns now in question are the Republican Senators with tape over their eyes, plugs in their ears, and heads up their asses. You know, like you and Marty, except those clowns are office holders. You ought to quit blaming the Republican resistance to honesty on other people.

So, anyway, when is knowing less ever a good argument? Other than when one wants to hide the truth, of course.

Your ignorance of the respective roles of the House and Senate regarding impeachment isn't my problem.

Yes, if your problems were related to that, you wouldn't have a problem.

So you agree your ignorance isn't my problem.

Got it.

A closer reading would have shown you that I agreed your problem is not my ignorance.

Just another way of saying your ignorance is not my problem

 

[joaquinmiller]

The trial is in the Senate. The Clowns now in question are the Republican Senators with tape over their eyes, plugs in their ears, and heads up their asses. You know, like you and Marty, except those clowns are office holders. You ought to quit blaming the Republican resistance to honesty on other people.

So, anyway, when is knowing less ever a good argument? Other than when one wants to hide the truth, of course.

Your ignorance of the respective roles of the House and Senate regarding impeachment isn't my problem.

Yes, if your problems were related to that, you wouldn't have a problem.

So you agree your ignorance isn't my problem.

Got it.

A closer reading would have shown you that I agreed your problem is not my ignorance.

Just another way of saying your ignorance is not my problem

If you'd like to tell me your problem, perhaps I can help.

 

[sealybobo]

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

“What is required for removal of the president?” Napolitano asked. “A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump’s case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.”

Fox News Legal Analyst: ‘Ample’ Evidence To Remove Donald Trump From Office | HuffPost

 

[DOTR]

v

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Wrong.

Republicans spent Tuesday telling America that Schifferbrians and his House Clowns didn't do their job, and the Senate isn't obligated to do it for them.

It is the job of the Senate you stupid fuck to bring out all the evidence & not be on Trump's side.

So fucking uninformed.

 

[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.

_______

You are a blind partisan. Meaning you only see the side of the case Adam Schiff wants you to see.

But, there are always TWO sides. and another Truth: The other side gets to tell their side!

If Biden's conduct in Ukraine was illegal, or unethical, then it was the job of the Executive to investigate---and Trump is the head. His making a request for help in developing facts of very suspicious behavior by our then Vice-President.

You say: Two separate things nothing {to do} with this impeachment

No, it has everything to do with Trump's right to mount a defence of the Impeachment. If he was doing his job in investigating corruption by Biden---it was irrelevant that Biden is running for office. He doesn't get a pass for possibly illegal conduct in the past, by running for office now.

Okay, that's funny.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Wrong.

Republicans spent Tuesday telling America that Schifferbrians and his House Clowns didn't do their job, and the Senate isn't obligated to do it for them.

It is the job of the Senate you stupid fuck to bring out all the evidence & not be on Trump's side.

So fucking uninformed.

Not uninformed. He got all the information on the front of him. He's just a leftist shill.

And moron.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Yes I recognize that the house inquiry was biased towards the Dems and they unfairly blocked out the Republican from presenting their counter narrative. It’s irrelevant whether I voice that or not back then. I don’t want this to be a personal hypocrisy debate, I’m tired of those.

I didn’t say I thought McConnells rules were bad behavior, I think if they follow through with blocking of witnesses and documents as many have publicly stated then there will be a public appearance of a dirty cover up. That result would be bad behavior of that’s what happens. IMO

I had originally thought that they would take advantage of this trial to roast Biden. Some are trying to push that narrative and that very well may be where they go. Either way I don’t see either party coming out of this thing looking better and our nation will be weaker as a whole.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I think that’s a BS argument. Obama’s fast and furious court case over documents lasted 7 years. Are you really supporting a presidents right to completely stonewall congressional subpoenas until years of court proceedings can make a decision?! You don’t see something horribly wrong with that?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Why should they play fair? That’s easy, because that’s what honorable people do. You do what’s right not what your opponents are doing... if you act like them then you are no better than they are