Marco Rubio Speaks Out

[Erinwltr]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

The bottom line is that impeachment has an asterisk next to it that says, "Democrat impeachment with bipartisan opposition".

No it wasn't bipartisan opposition, I'm sure Collins and Romney knew Alexander would not vote for more witnesses. And probably Lisa from AK got a call from tramp the night before and bribed her.

For the impeachment, it was 100% Republicans against it, and they had something like 2 or 3 Democrats who voted against it. That is bipartisan opposition to impeachment.

Doesn't matter. Now does it?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” Rubio wrote.

Seriously? How could allowing a president to remain in office after committing impeachable offenses be in the best interest of the country? It definitely is not in the best interest of the country to allow a criminal to become a de facto dictator who thumbs his nose at the U.S. Constitution and laws.

This demonstrates why rubio should not be in the Senate, much less be considered as a possible POTUS.

Most people who had a negative opinion had to be told what Trump was accused of was wrong. A Prog in the same circumstances would never have been impeached. Repubs better do this back to them.

Baseless statements. republicans have acted to keep a criminal in office and to hide what he has done from the American People. How does one have a trial with no witnesses or other evidence being presented. Don't forget that the orange whore deliberately (and illegally) prevented witnesses and documentary evidence from being presented, even though they supposedly would have exonerated him.

Every Senator took the following oath:

"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"
​

But then did nothing to hide that they entered the Senate chamber with their minds already made up as to how they would vote, in violation of this oath, fidgeting with toys, doing crossword puzzles, reading books. These people have no allegiance to this country or to its constitution. They don't have a shred of integrity.

Why you people think that anyone would want to vote for a republican after this and everything else we have seen is beyond me. This is disgusting, not to mention un-American.

​

We will see you at the ballot box in November.

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh, man! They are already getting started on 2024?

 

[CWayne]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

The bottom line is that impeachment has an asterisk next to it that says, "Democrat impeachment with bipartisan opposition".

No it wasn't bipartisan opposition, I'm sure Collins and Romney knew Alexander would not vote for more witnesses. And probably Lisa from AK got a call from tramp the night before and bribed her.

For the impeachment, it was 100% Republicans against it, and they had something like 2 or 3 Democrats who voted against it. That is bipartisan opposition to impeachment.

Doesn't matter. Now does it?

Not much. I'm just disappointed that the Senate did not get the House to release the testimony of the Inspector General. It was not included in the paper trail provided and to date, it is still being held in secret. I wonder what he had to say that the Democrats are keeping it secret from the rest of the country.

 

[Erinwltr]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

You mean like the 100% partisan impeachment in the house? LOL Even Dershowitz a Democrat argued against them.

The comment does not need your interpretation, Az. 100%?

 

[Crixus]

Last March Rep. Schiff said there was "little to be gained by putting the country through" the "wrenching experience" of a partisan impeachment.

But then they decided to do it anyway.

The House admitted they didn’t try to enforce testimony of witnesses in court because it would tie them up in litigation for a year. But then spent weeks demanding the Senate do it now. We were never going to play this stupid game with them

The same people to say "how dare Trump disagree with our intelligence professionals" are also the ones doubting the "intelligence professionals" on Soleimani planning an imminent attack.
The poll tested "stealing the election" line was also a joke. Was Trump trying to tamper with voting equipment or something? I wanted to laugh every time they said it but I think laughing was against the Senate impeachment rules

most obnoxious argument was the "I have secret information that's damning,but I can’t divulge it" Total crap. We have access to the same information & you don't have squat. If you did it would be leaked. Just like the mole at NSC illegally leaking portions of Bolton's book.

Bottom line is despite not initially wanting to do it they were bullied into impeachment by radical far left voices they are afraid of. Then they fell in love with the case & the cameras & the adoration of the media & forgot the damage impeachment inflicts on the country.

Marco Rubio ^

------------

So howcome you masters of the universe in the senate didn't allow a motion to dismiss like you did with Clinton? Giving your fake opponents cover. Government is just a big WWE match, both sides taking public $$$.

Two weeks of senate in trial mode is playing the stupid game with them. Of all people, Murkowski had the balls to call the articles out as worthless. Rubio comes out after the fact. Weakling.

I'm glad Trump was acquitted, but the GOP is putting up a half-baked fight.... as it usually does. But at least this time almost all of them stood together....Collins and Romney should have new committee assignments in the COAT ROOM, they are almost as dangerous to the nations health as the toxic DemonRATS!

Romny and Collins should have their campaigns money supply cut off in November. Not like they are the lesser of any two evils or anything.

 

[Oldstyle]

What they "admitted" was that they thought Trump was wrong to ask for the investigation into Biden...what they both were quite clear about was that they didn't think what Trump did even came close to being a reason to impeach a sitting President!

Exactly. Guilty as charged...they just don't care...and neither do you

It's not that they or I don't care...it's that we understand how dangerous it is to politicize impeachment like the Democrats have done! The Framers didn't set it up so that would be something that was easy to do and they did so on purpose. They didn't want a simple majority to be able to get rid of the person that the people elected...they made it a 2/3rd's majority...something that's almost impossible to get unless you have bi-partisan agreement that a President has broken the law to such an extent that he needs to go NOW instead of waiting for the next election! That was the case with Nixon. That bi-partisan consensus had been reached. It wasn't the case with Clinton. It certainly isn't the case with Trump!

 

[BluesLegend]

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and speculation.

Lawless punks in the Dem party assume Republicans are guilty. Even when Republicans prove their innocence Dems just ignore it and go right on claiming they are guilty or make up some new baseless charge. It's called propaganda.

Go to sleep. Wake up. Drink water. Take your meds. Breathe Fresh Air! Eat. Repeat.

^^^ clearly this lib clown doesn't work a job.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What I find amusing is that you think Republican Senators entered the Senate chambers with their minds made up but Democratic ones did not!

 

[Lysistrata]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

 

[kyzr]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What I find amusing is that you think Republican Senators entered the Senate chambers with their minds made up but Democratic ones did not!

The democrats see the writing on the wall for 2020.
Trump will win in a landslide because the dems have no worthy candidate and then here's what happens:
1. Trump replaces RBG with Amy Coney Barrett
2. Trump replaces Breyer with a young conservative justice
3. Trump replaces Thomas with a young conservative justice.

The dems will be going crazy to beat Trump in November, and the rest of us will be working to elect him.
The 2020 election will be Armageddon for both parties.

 

[kyzr]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

 

[Lysistrata]

Bottom line is that DJT has been Impeached and should be removed from office. Bottom line.

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

 

[Erinwltr]

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and speculation.

Lawless punks in the Dem party assume Republicans are guilty. Even when Republicans prove their innocence Dems just ignore it and go right on claiming they are guilty or make up some new baseless charge. It's called propaganda.

Go to sleep. Wake up. Drink water. Take your meds. Breathe Fresh Air! Eat. Repeat.

^^^ clearly this lib clown doesn't work a job.

As usual, you don't shit from shine-ola.

 

[Erinwltr]

Acquitted. Impeached = indicted. Acquitted = Not Guilty

Not proven guilty.

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

Lamar Alexander “The question then is not whether the president did it,"

I can't believe folks believe and post this garbage. Lamar is dead wrong and he knows it going into retirement protecting his party.

 

[Lysistrata]

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

Lamar Alexander “The question then is not whether the president did it,"

I can't believe folks believe and post this garbage. Lamar is dead wrong and he knows it going into retirement protecting his party.

The republicans have a thing now that you have to support "the party" at all costs. Germany, late 1930's. I apparently have "TDS," a mental illness, because I am against a takeover by "the party." What are we turning into?

 

[Erinwltr]

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

Lamar Alexander “The question then is not whether the president did it,"

I can't believe folks believe and post this garbage. Lamar is dead wrong and he knows it going into retirement protecting his party.

The republicans have a thing now that you have to support "the party" at all costs. Germany, late 1930's. I apparently have "TDS," a mental illness, because I am against a takeover by "the party." What are we turning into?

We, The United States, are turning into a Bully Republic. I can't believe that I am living long enough to witness this.

 

[Lesh]

It's not that they or I don't care...it's that we understand how dangerous it is to politicize impeachment like the Democrats have done!

Politicize Impeachment? You mean Impeaching a President for lying about a consensual sex act with another adult? Are you kidding?

This isn't that

The Framers didn't set it up so that would be something that was easy to do and they did so on purpose. They didn't want a simple majority to be able to get rid of the person that the people elected...they made it a 2/3rd's majority...something that's almost impossible to get unless you have bi-partisan agreement that a President has broken the law to such an extent that he needs to go NOW instead of waiting for the next election!

That majority just might be reached if the evidence and witnesses were presented. Republicans have done everything possible to make sure that didn't happen

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Come on, one more step, you're almost there.... What do we say in this country? Innocent until ... That's right, proven guilty. So take it from the top. Not proven guilty equals presumed innocence (aka, acquittal). Unless you favor some other standard based on feelz and arbitrary speculation.

Not when the jurors enter the "courtroom" with their minds already made up, in violation of the oaths they take, and then refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence. No acquittal in these circumstances is valid as it results from a "jury" that has openly announced, beforehand, that they are corrupt and have no intention of abiding by the oaths they took. Frankly, these senators perjured themselves.

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

Lamar Alexander “The question then is not whether the president did it,"

I can't believe folks believe and post this garbage. Lamar is dead wrong and he knows it going into retirement protecting his party.

How about we list full quotes not partial ones?

 

[Erinwltr]

What impeachment trial are you talking about? Because you're not describing the one that taking place right now, that's for sure. "Refuse to allow the presentation of the evidence"? You mean other than the 2,700 documents that were introduced in evidence and the testimony of 17 witnesses, including full transcripts of all of that testimony and video segments the House Managers felt best made their case? So you when you say "refused to allow presentation of the evidence," you're essentially saying all the evidence introduced which took 21 hours to present didn't amount to squat and wasn't sufficient to support a conviction on the articles of impeachment as charged. So why even pursue this to a Senate trial when they did? The possibility that maybe some new earth shattering revelation might fall in their lap during the trial?

This whole exercise is a perfect illustration of why the impeachment lacked merit from the get go.

This evidence was not introduced in front of the Senate. You are confusing the House investigation with the trial in the Senate. Have the testimony of witnesses and these documents been introduced in front of the Senate? Has Bolton, who was there, testified? NO.

Oh, wait! What's this?
Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics

DOJ has had these e-mails all the time and hid them??? Bring them forth in front of the Senate and read them so that the public can hear.

What part of Lamar Alexander's statement don't you get? The House managers proved their case. There was no crime nor any impeachable offenses. Read his statement saying that more witnesses is a waste of the senate's time.
Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

So you believe that no sitting president can be impeached while in office, no matter what crimes s/he has committed. It's okay to have a full dictatorship until the next election. So those who impeached Bill Clinton, including Ken Starr, were out of order. I guess that there is no such thing as impeachment under the Constitution then. Criminals cannot be moved except by election. How can a criminal bent on using his power for his own individual enrichment continue to serve by "the consent of the governed" if found to be misbehaving in office?

Now we have to spend the next ten months with a criminal as head of the executive branch, and God only knows what he will do. This is a monkey who even tells us where a hurricane is going to hit. The Senate has failed to protect the American People and our system of government, betrayed their oath, and declared themselves traitors.

Lamar Alexander “The question then is not whether the president did it,"

I can't believe folks believe and post this garbage. Lamar is dead wrong and he knows it going into retirement protecting his party.

How about we list full quotes not partial ones?

My comment stands.