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

[Faun]

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

You really, really, REALLY, are dense, aren't you?

Until 1998, Clinton was NOT an impeached president.
It was only AFTER impeachment that he was.

and he couldn't run again.

Trump will be able to, unless 20 or more Republicans cross the aisle to vote him out of office.

I'm kinda tired trying to explain this to 3 year olds.

bye

Clearly not as dense as you since you didn't say "after impeachment," your claim could have, and was, interpreted to mean he could stll serve 2 terms despite being impeached.

If you meant "after impeachment," as you say now, you should have said so.

considering you were referring to impeached presidents, you ARE far denser than I could ever be.

LOL

.... <cough> Andrew Johnson <cough>

 

[AntonToo]

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

This is false, on all counts.

Further, the compulsion to testify is on hold pending appeal.

Appeal will fail, there is no absolute immunity from Congressional oversight. DUH

 

[M14 Shooter]

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Again you are admitting that dems in the House went off half-cocked without the necessary evidence

Because you can't quite get that wholesale Obstruction itself is evidence of the concience of guilt.

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent; claiming EP and then going through the appeal process prior to answering a subpoena is not inherently corrupt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

This is false, on all counts.

Further, the compulsion to testify is on hold pending appeal.

Appeal will fail, there is no absolute immunity from Congressional oversight. DUH

Fact remains - until the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.
Duh.

 

[AntonToo]

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Again you are admitting that dems in the House went off half-cocked without the necessary evidence

Because you can't quite get that wholesale Obstruction itself is evidence of the concience of guilt.

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent; claiming EP and then going through the appeal process prior to answering a subpoena is not inherently corrupt.

Who claimed EP?

Trump admin simply refused to provide witnesses and documents in an unprecedented wholesale manner. Everything else is made up legal pretense to try to justify it.

 

[hadit]

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

Again, who said she's never going to send them?

And he's impeached already. Impeachment is not predicated upon the House sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever??

Not me.

What I said was if she doesn't send them over there is no impeachment. The Constitution is clear on this. "The Senate SHALL TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS". No trial, no impeachment.

Nazi is about to void her own Schitt Show.

"No trial, no impeachment."

^^^ Dumbfuck is as dumbfuck does

What happened to the crisis that he must be removed from office? What happened to the urgency?

It ran into politics. For democrats, politics is everything, and immediate danger must take second place.

 

[AntonToo]

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

This is false, on all counts.

Further, the compulsion to testify is on hold pending appeal.

Appeal will fail, there is no absolute immunity from Congressional oversight. DUH

Fact remains - until the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.
Duh.

Not true, appeals will simply re-affirm that which has always been true. Trump's legal defense is made up bullshit, people have to testify, otherwise Congressional oversight and impeachment powers are empty concepts.

The fact that administration is trying to fight it in this desparate manner is solid evidence of guilty concience.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Again you are admitting that dems in the House went off half-cocked without the necessary evidence

Because you can't quite get that wholesale Obstruction itself is evidence of the concience of guilt.

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent; claiming EP and then going through the appeal process prior to answering a subpoena is not inherently corrupt.

Who claimed EP?
Trump admin simply refused to provide witnesses and documents in an unprecedented wholesale manner.

That's an assertion of EP - there's no requirement that an actual declaration using the words "executive privilege" be used.

Everything else is made up legal pretense to try to justify it with made up legal standards.

I'm sorry you don;t like the fact Trump forcing congress to go to court in order to force compliance with a subpoena is not obstruction, but it remains a fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

This is false, on all counts.

Further, the compulsion to testify is on hold pending appeal.

Appeal will fail, there is no absolute immunity from Congressional oversight. DUH

Fact remains - until the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.
Duh.

No true, appeals will simply re-affirm that which has always been true. Trump's legal defense is made up bullshit, people have to testify, otherwise Congressional oversight and impeachment powers are empty concepts.

Fact remains - until the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.

The fact that administration is trying to fight it in this desparate manner is solid evidence of guilty concience.

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent; claiming EP and then going through the appeal process prior to answering a subpoena is not inherently corrupt

 

[2aguy]

Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.

In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.

Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.

Why are you leftards such morons.....if they wanted that testimony they simply had to go to court and have the court decide if the 4 witnesses they want actually had to testify or if they are protected.....the democrats didn't want to wait.....

This is not a legal procedure, it is a political procedure you dope......which is why they can impeach without any evidence of an actual crime being committed...you doofus.

 

[AntonToo]

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent;

The corrupt intent is to keep witnesses from testifying and documents from establishing facts before a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.

There is not a single reasonable person that will look at Trump's gross refusal to comply with Congressional oversight and see a possibility of good faith intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent;

The corrupt intent is to keep witnesses from testifying and documents from establishing facts before a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.

Trump is forcing Congress to work through due process - there's no concrete demonstration of corruption or corrupt intent in this because Trump gains no undue advantage over anyone in doing so.

Fact remains - until a court rules the subpoena is legal, compels answer to same, and the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.

 

[Pogo]

Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

Where have you ever seen a trial rely on falsified documents
presented to a judge by an intelligence agency?

Doesn't address the question, now does it.

Neither does ^

Not in the habit of answering my own rhetorical questions.

See, the idea is they don't have an answer.

 

[Pogo]

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION. (A) the results of an election, once certified, are recorded forever; and (B) if a POTUS is removed it is his own VP who succeeds to the throne, not some other candidate from any election.

What the democrats tried is the example of stealing the election by trying to remove the winner.

That DOESN'T "steal the election". If Rump is removed, the other part of the winning ticket still takes over.

Trump received 63 million votes.

How many of those were cast for him solely because Pense was on the ballot?

Irrelevant. Most of them were cast for one of two reasons: Either One, Hillary Clinton was on the ballot; or Two, "I've heard of this guy, seen him on TV". But the fact remains, removal of a POTUS has no retroactive effect on the election. The results are certified, and that's that. History is recorded and cannot be changed.

How many votes were cast for Gerald Ford in 1972? Also irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Utter horseshit. It's neither.

We already know the truth.

 

[Nostra]

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

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

WTF do you think he meant if not "after impeachment" you fucking moron?

You are getting desperate because you are getting your ass kicked.

 

[Nostra]

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

Not yet, Window Licker.

Yup.

Dimwinger libnut hack on the web brings a meme....................

Should I go with him, or the Constitutional Expert Dimwingers brought to testify on impeachment.............

Hmmmmmmm..........

Well I would suggest you use your own brain and understand what the Constitution states, but clearly, that's not within your limited capabilities...

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

Hmmmm.................who to believe......A single digit IQ libtard on the innerweb, or a Constitutional Expert on impeachment?

 

[Nostra]

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

You really, really, REALLY, are dense, aren't you?

Until 1998, Clinton was NOT an impeached president.
It was only AFTER impeachment that he was.

and he couldn't run again.

Trump will be able to, unless 20 or more Republicans cross the aisle to vote him out of office.

I'm kinda tired trying to explain this to 3 year olds.

bye

Clearly not as dense as you since you didn't say "after impeachment," your claim could have, and was, interpreted to mean he could stll serve 2 terms despite being impeached.

If you meant "after impeachment," as you say now, you should have said so.

considering you were referring to impeached presidents, you ARE far denser than I could ever be.

Calling Fawn a halfwit is an insult to halfwits everywhere.

 

[Nostra]

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent;

The corrupt intent is to keep witnesses from testifying and documents from establishing facts before a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.

There is not a single reasonable person that will look at Trump's gross refusal to comply with Congressional oversight and see a possibility of good faith intent.

You are a moron. The Exec Branch can challenge subpoenas in court. That isn't obstruction of Congress.

 

[keepitreal]

Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

Where have you ever seen a trial rely on falsified documents
presented to a judge by an intelligence agency?

Doesn't address the question, now does it.

Neither does ^

Not in the habit of answering my own rhetorical questions.

See, the idea is they don't have an answer.

See, the idea is they don't have an answer.