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

[Faun]

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

It's in the fucking constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

Lying fucking moron, it is not in the Constitution.

We need to know about who he talked too and what they know

LOL

Actually, you don't get to know shit beyond what's already been released.

 

[hadit]

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.

Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.

 

[Mac-7]

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

It appears that the whistleblower coordinated his attack with schiff instead of going to the IG as the law requires

there may be other reasons why schiff is hiding the wb that I cant guess

but it makes me very suspicious

 

[hadit]

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

As if your hollow denials carry any weight.

You're the lying fucking moron who actually just posted the impeached Trump does NOT have the Constitutional right to face his accuser AFTER claiming he does.

Are you saying I'm lying about posting examples of invalid whistleblower claims?

No, I'm saying your hollow denials that most of the whistleblower's complaint were proven in the hearings is a lie because they were. I have no doubt you posted that lie before.

I posted the evidence, dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Like you posted the evidence that Trump has the Constitutional right to face his accuser, lying fucking moron?? After all, it's in the Bill of Rights, right???

The more extreme you attacks, the more we know you realize that you're wrong.

Due process is in the Constitution. I simply pointed out that Adolph Schiffler and the Dims aren't following it.

Lying fucking moron... you made an utter ass of yourself posting how facing your accuser applies to "legal" cases AFTER pointing out the impeached Trump's case is not a "legal trial."

You literally pwned yourself. Magnificently, might I add.

Now you want me to believe other nonsense you've posted.

 

[colfax_m]

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.

Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.

 

[hadit]

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

It appears that the whistleblower coordinated his attack with schiff instead of going to the IG as the law requires

there may be other reasons why schiff is hiding the wb that I cant guess

but it makes me very suspicious

Exactly, and in the interest of transparency, I think we should be aware of how that all went down. If Schiff mishandled it, he needs to be held accountable. "Nothing to see here, return to your homes".

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.

Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?

 

[hadit]

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.

Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.

And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.

 

[Faun]

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.

Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.

 

[hadit]

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.

Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?

It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.

 

[Faun]

ISo you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

Not very likely, but you can always hope. By same thing, obviously, I expect the president's popularity to increase, which likely will ensure victory next year, as the democrats have yet to find a coherent candidate, much less a message. Running on "We failed to get rid of him" just doesn't sound like a winning message.

But that's what you said. You said, "the same is likely to happen this time as well," and Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton.

My prediction is no change of hands at the white house or senate and house in 2020

So?

Such predictions are meaningless. Especially this far out. I understand you're looking for some glimmer of hope following Trump getting impeached but the reality is, no one knows yet how this is going to play out.

I agree

NO one knows

but I’m more confident every day

Good for you.

 

[Faun]

Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.

5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019

• 

12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes

1. 1. 
      New conversation
   2. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
      
      3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
      
   3. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
      
      2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
      
   4. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 2h2 hours ago
      Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
      
      1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
      

Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...

 

[hadit]

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.

Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.

If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.

 

[Claudette]

Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.



it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.

McConnell's laughing too hard. Someone slap him before he has a seizure.

McConnell will be running the Senate show. I'm sure he'll tell Upchuck to pound sand.

 

[Faun]

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.

Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.

If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.

Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.

I'm not getting your point here.

 

[hadit]

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.

Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.

If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.

Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.

I'm not getting your point here.

That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I guess you missed that part. I guess you want to change the entire court system to get your wishes. No reason to cross-examine those who make accustations against others. How absurd can you be?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.

Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Nothing was confirmed stop lying

 

[colfax_m]

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.

Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.

And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.

Now you’re just playing semantics.

 

[MAGAman]

What never happened?

The thing that Sondland testified to happening?

Lets have Jiuliani and other Trump people stop hiding, come to Congress and say it.

No. Soldland said he 'felt' like something happened but that he heard Trump say "I want nothing. No Quid Pro Quo".

In a non-Fascist court, people testify about what they witness, not what they feel.

Nobody has evidence that Trump did anything wrong or Democrats would have presented it.

You're TDS is breaking out.