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

[Auld Phart]

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

 

[Nostra]

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Executive Privilege. Ever heard of it? One of Obama's favorite tactics.

Next?

 

[Nostra]

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

So you agree he has yet to be impeached.

Why would I agree with that since impeachment happens solely in the House and the articles passed? At that moment, he's impeached. Pertsining to that, it matters not when the House sends the articles to the Senate.

Not according to the Constitutional Expert the Dimwingers had testify on impeachment.

I'll take his knowledge over a fuckwit libnut on the innerweb any day, Fuckwit.

 

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

How about Senate rules? Do they matter anymore?

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ''; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock after noon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

more...​

Thanks for once again confirming that he isn't impeached until they present it to the Senate.

Nice job, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Who the fuck knows what you read in there to reach that conclusion.

 

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

He doesn't have a choice, moron. He can do the job he agreed to do, or get a new one.

He can't start the trial until the case is given to him. If he does, it won't be legitimate and won't be binding on the articles of impeachment. I seriously doubt Roberts would even entertain such nonsense.

You keep making the case Trump is not yet impeached.

Nice job, Dummy.

LOLOL

Poor, demented dumbfuck. Trump is already impeached.

 

[Nostra]

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

How about Senate rules? Do they matter anymore?

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ''; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock after noon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

more...​

Thanks for once again confirming that he isn't impeached until they present it to the Senate.

Nice job, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Who the fuck knows what you read in there to reach that conclusion.

I listened to the Dimwingers Expert Witness on impeachment and the Constitution, fuckwit. He, along with others, point out it isn't official until presented to the Senate, Fuckwit.

 

[Nostra]

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

He doesn't have a choice, moron. He can do the job he agreed to do, or get a new one.

He can't start the trial until the case is given to him. If he does, it won't be legitimate and won't be binding on the articles of impeachment. I seriously doubt Roberts would even entertain such nonsense.

You keep making the case Trump is not yet impeached.

Nice job, Dummy.

LOLOL

Poor, demented dumbfuck. Trump is already impeached.

Nope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Or, more likely he knows he has to play ball in order to resolve this.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

"Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass? "

looks like I did


you're assuming there will be.

That's not the post I responded to mister moderator.

 

[Faun]

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

Lies.

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Nazi, Schifferbrains, and Nadless were in too big of a hurry to let our system work. Instead, they plowed thru with nothing but hearsay.

They are clowns.

Oh? Show these lawsuits Impeached Trump filed...

 

[Auld Phart]

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

"Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass? "

looks like I did


you're assuming there will be.

That's not the post I responded to mister moderator.

Not my problem you missed me saying it.

It was there before you responded, saying I didn't say something

 

[Nostra]

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

Lies.

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Nazi, Schifferbrains, and Nadless were in too big of a hurry to let our system work. Instead, they plowed thru with nothing but hearsay.

They are clowns.

Oh? Show these lawsuits Impeached Trump filed...

What lawsuits? Where did I say anything about lawsuits, Fuckwit?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Huh?
Both the others served two terms.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

"Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass? "

looks like I did


you're assuming there will be.

That's not the post I responded to mister moderator.

Not my problem you missed me saying it.

It was there before you responded, saying I didn't say something

I didn't miss you saying it. It was not in the post I responded to, dope.

Tell us some more about how Mitch can pass a bill by himself, idiot.

 

[Faun]

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

 

[Nostra]

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

And until they do, Trump hasn't been impeached, Halfwit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

^ What an idiot.

 

[Faun]

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Oh? How many terms do you thinkClinton served, if not two?

 

[Auld Phart]

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

"Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass? "

looks like I did


you're assuming there will be.

That's not the post I responded to mister moderator.

Not my problem you missed me saying it.

It was there before you responded, saying I didn't say something

I didn't miss you saying it. It was not in the post I responded to, dope.

Tell us some more about how Mitch can pass a bill by himself, idiot.

Tell us some more about how Mitch can pass a bill by himself, idiot.

What ever they use in their respective houses to change the rules, Nancy and Mitch can put one up for a vote, and only need a majority to pass it.

 

[Nostra]

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Oh? How many terms do you thinkClinton served, if not two?

Clinton had already been reelected. He clearly said "another term".

Learn to read, Puddinbrain.

 

[Auld Phart]

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Oh? How many terms do you thinkClinton served, if not two?

2

But he did not serve a new term AFTER he was impeached.