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

[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.

Ignore it?

no problem

Pass a nonbinding contempt of congress ?

again no problem unless the senate agrees

or impeach him

which is also meaningless unless they submit it to the senate and get a conviction

so all you have is going to court which the dems didnt do

Impeachment is hardly meaningless.

It is until presented to the Senate, Crayon Muncher.

 

[Faun]

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.

Poor, deranged wingnuts. Lost in a vast land of denial.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Bill served another term you idiot

Bill was impeached in 1998.
What other term did he serve? What other term was he able to serve?

Kinda ironic that you called him an idiot - eh?

Bill was impeached in 1998.
What other term did he serve? What other term was he able to serve?

Kinda ironic that you called him an idiot-eh?

LOL...

The irony is that you just explained why he's an idiot and you don't even know it.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

 

[Faun]

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

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Poor, deranged wingnuts. Lost in a vast land of denial.

Nope. Wrong again Fawn the Fuckwit.

 

[Nostra]

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

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

Not yet, Window Licker.

 

[colfax_m]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

Show us the perjury charges against any of the witnesses, dope.
In lieu of that, you cannot debunk anything they've testified to.

Wrong again, moron. The perjury may not be exposed until months after they testify.

And......until such time, you cannot debunk it.

Sure I can. It has already been debunked. Their testimony is meaningless since it's all hearsay.

 

[Mac-7]

“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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Sure, dumbfuck. Suuure. Shit, even Fox news published...

That was the early stampede by brainless journalists

but they are beginning to have 2nd thoughts

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

Show us the perjury charges against any of the witnesses, dope.
In lieu of that, you cannot debunk anything they've testified to.

Wrong again, moron. The perjury may not be exposed until months after they testify.

And......until such time, you cannot debunk it.

Sure I can. It has already been debunked. Their testimony is meaningless since it's all hearsay.

Yeah, sure. By order of your dopey opinion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The Senate can proceed with the trail

Of course they can. But it will be a mock trial not binding on the articles of impeachment they don't have. Democrats won't participate and likely neither will the Chief Justice.

Might as well have a mock trial since we had a mock impeachment

LOLOL

And by mock impeachment, you mean a duly Constitutionally authorized impeachment which is already cast the record books in tungsten for all time.

And laughed at by all with a functioning brain.

 

[Faun]

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.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

 

[bripat9643]

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

Show us the perjury charges against any of the witnesses, dope.
In lieu of that, you cannot debunk anything they've testified to.

Wrong again, moron. The perjury may not be exposed until months after they testify.

And......until such time, you cannot debunk it.

Sure I can. It has already been debunked. Their testimony is meaningless since it's all hearsay.

Yeah, sure. By order of your dopey opinion.

Better than your worthless opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

 

[Faun]

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

The Senate can proceed with the trail

Of course they can. But it will be a mock trial not binding on the articles of impeachment they don't have. Democrats won't participate and likely neither will the Chief Justice.

Might as well have a mock trial since we had a mock impeachment

LOLOL

And by mock impeachment, you mean a duly Constitutionally authorized impeachment which is already cast the record books in tungsten for all time.

And laughed at by all with a functioning brain.

LOLOL

Which excludes lying fucking morons like you.

Impeached Trump is still impeached.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

 

[Auld Phart]

“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.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

Do you doubt he will be acquitted?