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

[bigrebnc1775]

The witnesses from the Democrat investigation and no new witnesses

Who says the House has to call every witness they wan for the Trial??

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

Because it's supposed to be a trial. Witnesses are generally called in trials.

Yes witnesses are called those that were part of the investigation
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides.

Nowhere is it written that only witnesses who testified in the impeachment can testify in the Senate. You're literally making that up out of whole cloth.

It's not the Senate's job to investigate what the democrats didn't do if it is show me where that rule is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Guess he's not gonna practice law again, huh?

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

 

[Faun]

That’s not true.

It's true, the jury has no duty to call new witnesses and do further investigations for the prosecutor

THE TRUTH IS YOU'RE IGNORING THE US CONSTITUTION.

Constitutionally speaking the Jury is not obligated to investigate that's the part of the houses job.

What kind of idiot are you? The Senate holds a trial. The purpose of a trial is to determine if the impeachment was warranted or not. It's not to blindly decide it wasn't and not actually conduct a trial.

What kind of idiot are you to disagree with the facts?
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment.
A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate.

The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides.

Post a link that shows only witnesses from the impeachment hearings can be called to testify in the Senate's trial. You're making that up.

 

[Siete]

They can only call those that was heard from in the investigation

That’s not true.

It's true, the jury has no duty to call new witnesses and do further investigations for the prosecutor

THE TRUTH IS YOU'RE IGNORING THE US CONSTITUTION.

Constitutionally speaking the Jury is not obligated to investigate that's the part of the houses job.

What kind of idiot are you? The Senate holds a trial. The purpose of a trial is to determine if the impeachment was warranted or not. It's not to blindly decide it wasn't and not actually conduct a trial.

shit like this is what they do -

I saw a reporter on tv play a tape of Trump making a comment, and the lady being interviewed automatically said "HE DIDNT SAY THAT"

the reporter said yes he did, he just said it - again the woman claimed Trump never said what he was filmed saying.

4 f'n times in a row ......

F'EM ALL.

 

[colfax_m]

Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last time around.

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Stick to the topic chief.

Republicans had no problem requesting witnesses during impeachment trial that weren't called during the hearing last time around.

Republicans are hypocrites and afraid of the truth.

You're the one that brought Bill Clinton up sport
The crime Clinton committed actually cost him his law licenses SPORT

The topic is Republicans being hypocrites. When it was a Democrat being impeached, they were all for calling additional witnesses.

Now that it’s a Republican, totally different story.

 

[Faun]

Who says the House has to call every witness they wan for the Trial??

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

Because it's supposed to be a trial. Witnesses are generally called in trials.

Yes witnesses are called those that were part of the investigation
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides.

Nowhere is it written that only witnesses who testified in the impeachment can testify in the Senate. You're literally making that up out of whole cloth.

It's not the Senate's job to investigate what the democrats didn't do if it is show me where that rule is?

It's the Senate's job to hold a trial. Any witnesses for or against impeachment can be called to testify. Regardless of whether or not they already testified in the House.

 

[georgephillip]

EVERY PERSON WHO TESTIFIED in both Schiff's and Nadler's failed coup hearings ADMITTED THEY WITNESSED NOTHING.

What did YOU witness on October 3rd?

Trump urges China to investigate Bidens

"What did Trump say on Thursday?

"When asked what Mr Trump sought as a 'favour' from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in this summer's phone call, Mr Trump responded: 'Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer.'

"'They should investigate the Bidens,' he said, speaking to reporters on the lawn of the White House.

'Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened to China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,' he continued."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Stick to the topic chief.

Republicans had no problem requesting witnesses during impeachment trial that weren't called during the hearing last time around.

Republicans are hypocrites and afraid of the truth.

You're the one that brought Bill Clinton up sport
The crime Clinton committed actually cost him his law licenses SPORT

The topic is Republicans being hypocrites. When it was a Democrat being impeached, they were all for calling additional witnesses.

Now that it’s a Republican, totally different story.

No that's not the topic
Try once more.
Dude when democrats were beating the impeachment drum from the beginning this impeachment is pure bullshit and payback will be a bitch democrats will not be able to pay.

 

[Faun]

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Guess he's not gonna practice law again, huh?

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Guess he's not gonna practice law again, huh?

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

 

[lantern2814]

MITCH MCCONNELL IS 'IN LITERAL VIOLATION OF THE OATH' HE MUST TAKE FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SAYS GOVERNMENT PROFESSOR
Mitch McConnell is "in literal violation of the oath" he must take for impeachment trial, says government professor

"After Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently confirmed that he will conduct President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial in full accordance with the White House's wishes, a government professor said the senator will be acting "in literal violation of the oath" he will be required to take at the start of the trial.

In recent days, McConnell indicated that he has held discussions with the White House to formulate an impeachment game plan to achieve a favorable outcome for Trump. "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel," the senator told Fox News host Sean Hannity late last week. "There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this." The Republican also revealed that he will be working in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people representing the president in the well of the Senate."

McConnell's remarks have drawn fierce criticism from Democrats who have condemned him for failing to act impartially and openly gaming the process to ensure Trump's acquittal. In a recent op-ed written for The Bulwark, Jeffrey K. Tulis, a professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, slammed McConnell's actions as "anti-Constitutional" and asserted that the senator will be "in literal violation" of the impeachment oath he will have to take before the trial begins.

Tulis explained that the impeachment trial in the Senate is so serious that senators will be required to make a new oath of office. He noted that Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution sets out that senators sitting on a trial of impeachment "shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

And all the Dims you fawn over who said Trump was guilty before ANY charges were fabricated were perfectly lawful. STFU. Maybe actually find some evidence of your bullshit next time loser.

 

[georgephillip]

BTW, has anyone heard a word from witness #1 ... the "whistleblower?" About "whistleblower" #2?

Why would any rational observer need to hear from witnesses whose written complaint is comprehensive, detailed, and has been fully corroborated by documents and individuals with first-hand knowledge?

Tell us again why Trump is too timid to testify in his own defense and why this would upset you more if he hadn't switched political parties.

Only a Stalinist douchebag would ask such a question.

Only a Stalinist douchebag would ask such a question.

I never voted for Stalin (or Hitler)

The world's leading expert on Hitler refused to write about Trump for months. Then everything changed

Yes, yes more of that. Mother Russia needs devoted Soldiers like you to carry the banner of Socialism all across the Imperialist American Continent.

Today is a GLORIOUS DAY for Mother Russia, and you are part of our success.

Thank You For Your Service

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

 

[Siete]

Guess he's not gonna practice law again, huh?

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

 

[lantern2814]

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

Get over 2016 when you LOST fair and square. YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT!

 

[Siete]

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

Get over 2016 when you LOST fair and square. YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT!

WRONG CLINTON U DUMBASS -

 

[georgephillip]

Grinch Trump was stonewalling all subpoena requests for individuals and documents in hopes of running out the clock before next November. Do you suppose that has anything to do with statute of limitations restrictions over his pending Russian collusion/obstruction charges?

Michael Cohen: "Individual 1 is Donald J. Trump"

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Get back to me when you elect a POTUS who's read the Constitution.
All the times Trump said the constitution let's him do whatever he wants

It definitely allows him to pursue Congressional demands all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do you disagree?

It definitely allows him to pursue Congressional demands all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do you disagree?

There's no Constitutional provision for refusing ALL congressional requests for documents AND individuals relating to a impeachment proceeding.

House Judiciary Committee passes articles of impeachment against Trump - WQOW

You are rising through the Ranks of Our Kremlin Kids Program, & soon you will be a Jr. Russian Cub, Comrade. Continue perfecting your hate for America on this Glorious Day for Mother Russia. We congratulate you on your success for overturning the 2016 Election where my Dirty Russian Dossier had failed.

You are rising through the Ranks of Our Kremlin Kids Program, & soon you will be a Jr. Russian Cub, Comrade. Continue perfecting your hate for America on this Glorious Day for Mother Russia. We congratulate you on your success for overturning the 2016 Election where my Dirty Russian Dossier had failed.

"A leading expert on the Nazi party has said there are similarities between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.

"Both men 'bluffed' their way into power, confounding an establishment that did not know what to do but normalise them, according to author Ron Rosenbaum."

The world's leading expert on Hitler refused to write about Trump for months. Then everything changed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

Nevertheless, they were impeachable crimes

 

[bripat9643]

We've already told you, the DOJ is a next of deep state vipers. Trump gave the job to someone he could trust, not someone who was going to try to get him impeached or leak classified secrets to the press. That's not illegal.

You're also wrong in claiming that a foreign government to investigate American crooks in their country. The treaty we signed with Ukraine proves that theory is bogus from the starting gate.

You're inventing legal theories out of thin air.

Again, the term "solicit" implies a crime was committed. You're begging the question whenever you use it.

As far as the treaty, YOU posted provisions in it must be followed. And the provision for making requests must come from our Attorney General, not the president. And they must be made to their Minister of Justice, not their president. And requests must be made on ongoing investigations, not opening up new ones.

ROFL! Now you're trying to claim (without actually claiming it) than not going by the procedure in the treaty is a crime. The fact is they must be followed only if you want the cooperation of the signers to the treaty. It doesn't make not following the procedure a crime, you fucking douchebag.

The existence of the treaty shows that it's not illegal to ask a foreign government for help in prosecuting American criminals.

In your douchebag fashion, you come down on both wrong sides of that issue.

LOLOL

You poor, deranged, lying fucking moron... YOU say I said it's a crime to not adhere to the treaty -- I never said that. I said he's not covered by the treaty because he didn't use it, but instead, went directly to the president of Ukraine.

Yeah, I know douchebag. You tried your usual shtick of implying that it was illegal not to follow the procedure without actually saying that:

As far as the treaty, YOU posted provisions in it must be followed. And the provision for making requests must come from our Attorney General, not the president.​

"Not covered by the treaty" is just another way of implying that not following the procedure is illegal.

If it's not illegal, then what's the point of saying what you posted?

Who do you think you're fooling?

No, it's not, ya lying fucking mpron. Not following the treaty means he wasn't using the treaty.

And what I said was illegal was soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. I never said not following the treaty is a crime.

I know you didn't say exactly those words, you fucking douchebag, but that's what you implied without actually saying so. Why even mention he didn't follow the procedure mentioned in the treaty if it has no legal consequences? Do you imagine everyone is as stupid as you?

Again, the term "soliciting" implies a crime was committed. So what your saying is that it's a crime to request help from a foreign government because it's a crime to request help from a foreign government. You're begging the question.

The treaty shows that it's not illegal to request help from a foreign national to investigate an American because he's running for office. There is no such law, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

When you introduce new witnesses it is investigating

Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last time around.

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

I just didn't follow your poor writing.

Last time, Dims got to call all the witnesses they wanted during the House inquiry. You don't help your case by citing the Clinton impeachment.

There's nothing wrong with my writing. You just have a hard time with comprehension.

Sure there is. You gave no hints about what the term "last time" meant.

 

[bripat9643]

We've been through this before
The Senate is the Jury and Judge in all impeachment EXCEPT for impeachment of the President. The Chief Justice presides over the impeachment
THE SENATE IS STILL THE JURY

Its a limited analogy. They’re more than the jury since apparently the Senate has to agree what witnesses will be called. This is a decision typically left to the prosecutor and defense, not the jury.

The witnesses from the Democrat investigation and no new witnesses

Who says the House has to call every witness they wan for the Trial??

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

Because it's supposed to be a trial. Witnesses are generally called in trials.

It's not a criminal trial, moron. Why would you need to call a witness when his testimony has already been observed?