Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[hadit]

This is a thread on impeachment, not your hatred of the FBI.

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

 

[hadit]

This is a thread on impeachment, not your hatred of the FBI.

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

 

[colfax_m]

This is a thread on impeachment, not your hatred of the FBI.

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

 

[colfax_m]

This is a thread on impeachment, not your hatred of the FBI.

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

 

[hadit]

Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'
Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'



“Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal,” the panel’s Democrats argue, labeling Trump’s behavior “both constitutional and criminal in character” and contending that the president “betrayed the people of this nation” and should be removed from office.

The staff report, which was filed to the House Rules Committee just after midnight Monday, argues that Trump directed a months-long scheme to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, the allegation that forms the core of the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — approved by the Judiciary Committee last week. Democrats emphasized that proving a criminal violation is not required to justify impeachment.

Yet not a one of these "multiple federal crimes" is spelled out with specificity in the articles of impeachment.

But....

View attachment 295047

And therein lies the rub. The usual suspect will run around from now until the sun burns out screeching that Trump committed all of these crimes, yet the people with the power to actually charge him with them refuse to do. I wonder which group has the most insider information, the House democrats or the internet keyboard jockeys who read something someone wrote about it?

 

[hadit]

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

 

[hadit]

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

 

[colfax_m]

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

I think the voter deserves to know this information. I support whatever mechanism gets the information to the voter before the election.

 

[berg80]

Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'
Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'



“Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal,” the panel’s Democrats argue, labeling Trump’s behavior “both constitutional and criminal in character” and contending that the president “betrayed the people of this nation” and should be removed from office.

The staff report, which was filed to the House Rules Committee just after midnight Monday, argues that Trump directed a months-long scheme to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, the allegation that forms the core of the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — approved by the Judiciary Committee last week. Democrats emphasized that proving a criminal violation is not required to justify impeachment.

Yet not a one of these "multiple federal crimes" is spelled out with specificity in the articles of impeachment.

But....

View attachment 295047

And therein lies the rub. The usual suspect will run around from now until the sun burns out screeching that Trump committed all of these crimes, yet the people with the power to actually charge him with them refuse to do. I wonder which group has the most insider information, the House democrats or the internet keyboard jockeys who read something someone wrote about it?

You understand the OLC guideline prevents the DoJ from indicting a prez, right? It's the opinion that prevented Mueller from indicting Individual 1 for obstruction.
The Judiciary report makes clear Trump violated the law but while they can include the evidence of such in the articles he can't formally be charged with a crime by Congress. You get all that, right?

 

[DGS49]

Sooooooo...

The Democrats stage a sham trial in the House, with a cornucopia of slanders and no opportunity to rebut anything effectively, and NOW they want a REAL trial?

Un.

Fucking.

Believable.

McConnell will shove it right up their collective, figurative ASS! And he should.

 

[hadit]

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

 

[colfax_m]

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.

 

[colfax_m]

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

 

[hadit]

Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'
Judiciary Committee impeachment report alleges Trump committed 'multiple federal crimes'



“Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal,” the panel’s Democrats argue, labeling Trump’s behavior “both constitutional and criminal in character” and contending that the president “betrayed the people of this nation” and should be removed from office.

The staff report, which was filed to the House Rules Committee just after midnight Monday, argues that Trump directed a months-long scheme to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, the allegation that forms the core of the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — approved by the Judiciary Committee last week. Democrats emphasized that proving a criminal violation is not required to justify impeachment.

Yet not a one of these "multiple federal crimes" is spelled out with specificity in the articles of impeachment.

But....

View attachment 295047

And therein lies the rub. The usual suspect will run around from now until the sun burns out screeching that Trump committed all of these crimes, yet the people with the power to actually charge him with them refuse to do. I wonder which group has the most insider information, the House democrats or the internet keyboard jockeys who read something someone wrote about it?

You understand the OLC guideline prevents the DoJ from indicting a prez, right? It's the opinion that prevented Mueller from indicting Individual 1 for obstruction.
The Judiciary report makes clear Trump violated the law but while they can include the evidence of such in the articles he can't formally be charged with a crime by Congress. You get all that, right?

No, Congress can charge him with crimes, and impeach him for crimes. They, however, chose not to even mention any.

 

[hadit]

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

 

[hadit]

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.

Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.

 

[Nostra]

Cryin’ Chucky is hilarious.

Sit down. Shut the fuck up. You have no say.

Karma is a bitch.

 

[colfax_m]

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

 

[colfax_m]

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.

Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.

These are government officials. Testifying before the people's representatives is part of their duty to the American people. It's not harassment to answer questions about their actions as servants to the people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The House failed to present a case

Once again a Trumper states the opposite of the truth.

3 years later and "Obstruction of Hillary" is STILL not a crime