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

[Mac-7]

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.

All the volumous, consistent testimony and evidence we have plus the fact of never ending Obstruction by the President makes for a compelling case that any reasonable jury would convict on.

Trump is guilty as charged and you are the dupe electing to carry water for this swamp.

.

 

[lantern2814]

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually g
et some evidence of your crap next time.

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever deranged.

Link to where Pisslosi has any power over the Senate? Oh there isn't one. Showing yourself to be an uneducated litrle yellow coward as always. Put up or STFU. GFY.

Dumbfuck, I never said she has any power over tbd Senate.

You're fucked in the head which is why you've gone off the rails.

Your word says I will slap you down with. “Wha5 if Pelosi does not let the Senate hold a trial?”. She can’t stop them you dipshit. Now lie and cry and try to spin out of that moron.

 

[lantern2814]

Precisely

the dems are admitting they had insufficient evidence when they voted to impeach trump

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

Let me type that very slowly:

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

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

What part of the witnesses were already called and heard from seems to be beyond you? All of it apparently. The Senate are NOT the prosecutors, they are the jury. Jurors do not call witnesses. You do NOT get to change your mind and want other things AFTER the House concluded their sham. Now maybe stop grabbing your ankles for your Dim masters and actually learn something.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

FAUX can never win, so he resorts to nit picking trivial discrepancies or ambiguities and uses the harshest language to do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

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.

Attempted removal under false pretense is theft

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

obama also said his name might not have been on the ballot but his policies were. If you like what I did and want to keep it vote for hillary

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Actually that hasn't worked either. lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Actually he's not lying but gee coming from a liar like you we laugh when you call others liars. lol
FYI THE PRESIDENT HASN'T BEEN IMPEACHED YET UNTIL NANCY SENDS THE PAPERWORK TO THE SENATE LOL

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Don't forget about what obama said lol

 

[Faun]

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.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck ... he literally said Andrew Johnson could not run again. WTF is wrong with you to defend such nonsense?

 

[Olde Europe]

What part of the witnesses were already called and heard from seems to be beyond you? All of it apparently. The Senate are NOT the prosecutors, they are the jury. Jurors do not call witnesses. You do NOT get to change your mind and want other things AFTER the House concluded their sham. Now maybe stop grabbing your ankles for your Dim masters and actually learn something.

You know, dummy, your pretend arrogance and silly bloviation is kind of cute. Not having any idea whereof you speak, makes your spectacle a bit lousy, though.

The Senate conducts a trial - tries all cases of impeachment - meaning that the Senate along with the House Impeachment managers (the prosecution) form a court. Courts, as you may have heard, do hear witnesses. All the time, actually. The Senate heard witnesses in Johnson's trial, took depositions from called-upon witnesses, then reported to the whole Senate, in Clinton's case.

That is to say, you are wrong on all counts, and an insult to everyone's intelligence. Everyone's but yours.

As to that demented blab, "The Senate are NOT the prosecutors, they are the jury." Silly. Senators vote on the rules of the trial, quite unlike a jury. Senators render judgment, quite like a jury. Senators vote on subpoenas, on witnesses to call, on motions to adjourn, and a host of other issues, completely unlike a jury, as the Senate impeachment trial rules may provide.

You know what, lantern, switch on the light and search for a clue. The next you find will be your first. And no, your preferred "sources" in the rightarded blabbosphere won't help you any.

Finally, this is not a place to share your fantasies about anal penetration. Why don't you take your public self-pleasuring elsewhere?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Clinton of course didn't run in 2000 and was ineligible but funny thing about 1998, the year cited. Traditionally whichever of the Duopoly party holds the White House, loses Congressional seats in the mid-term. There have been only three exceptions in the entire history since Lincoln. One of them was..... 1998. It led to Gingrich's resignation.

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.

the two of you are in the running for densest poster of the day.

Neither impeached president served another term after he was impeached

Neither one ran for it either. As they say about the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.

 

[lantern2814]

What part of the witnesses were already called and heard from seems to be beyond you? All of it apparently. The Senate are NOT the prosecutors, they are the jury. Jurors do not call witnesses. You do NOT get to change your mind and want other things AFTER the House concluded their sham. Now maybe stop grabbing your ankles for your Dim masters and actually learn something.

You know, dummy, your pretend arrogance and silly bloviation is kind of cute. Not having any idea whereof you speak, makes your spectacle a bit lousy, though.

The Senate conducts a trial - tries all cases of impeachment - meaning that the Senate along with the House Impeachment managers (the prosecution) form a court. Courts, as you may have heard, do hear witnesses. All the time, actually. The Senate heard witnesses in Johnson's trial, took depositions from called-upon witnesses, then reported to the whole Senate, in Clinton's case.

That is to say, you are wrong on all counts, and an insult to everyone's intelligence. Everyone's but yours.

As to that demented blab, "The Senate are NOT the prosecutors, they are the jury." Silly. Senators vote on the rules of the trial, quite unlike a jury. Senators render judgment, quite like a jury. Senators vote on subpoenas, on witnesses to call, on motions to adjourn, and a host of other issues, completely unlike a jury, as the Senate impeachment trial rules may provide.

You know what, lantern, switch on the light and search for a clue. The next you find will be your first. And no, your preferred "sources" in the rightarded blabbosphere won't help you any.

Finally, this is not a place to share your fantasies about anal penetration. Why don't you take your public self-pleasuring elsewhere?

When dont you go fuck yourself you lying ignorant POS? Your leftist drivel isn’t surprising. Nor isn’t your ignorance of reality. Hey fuckwad, the only evidence you can present is what the House found. You don’t get to change the rules because you suck at your job. So GFY you arrogant scum.

 

[Pogo]

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. "

Once again --- Clinton was not able to serve another term; the Twenty-Second Amendment proscribes that. And Johnson never ran to succeed himself.

 

[Pogo]

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

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

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?

Both other POTUSes were NOT on their second term. Andrew Johnson succeeded to the office upon the death of Lincoln in April of 1865. Not only was he still eligible to run for his own term but even if the 22nd Amendment had been in effect then, he still could have run for TWO of his own terms.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dumbfuck...

.
@NoahRFeldman is making a clever but wholly mistaken point when he says Trump hasn’t “really” been impeached until the Articles reach the Senate. Under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period.

Laurence Tribe on Twitter

 

[Faun]

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually g
et some evidence of your crap next time.

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever deranged.

Link to where Pisslosi has any power over the Senate? Oh there isn't one. Showing yourself to be an uneducated litrle yellow coward as always. Put up or STFU. GFY.

Dumbfuck, I never said she has any power over tbd Senate.

You're fucked in the head which is why you've gone off the rails.

Your word says I will slap you down with. “Wha5 if Pelosi does not let the Senate hold a trial?”. She can’t stop them you dipshit. Now lie and cry and try to spin out of that moron.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the House has sole power of impeachment. That's what she has power of. Until it goes to the Senate, she's in control. That's doesn't give her power to tell the Senate what they can or cannot do.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

Got still more bad nooz for ya. Even if he's impeached AND removed from office, it doesn't mean he can't run again, unless the Senate would stipulate that, so yes he would be eligible to run again.. Which means we could have a President Pence for several months and then do 2016 all over again.

 

[Faun]

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.

Actually he's not lying but gee coming from a liar like you we laugh when you call others liars. lol
FYI THE PRESIDENT HASN'T BEEN IMPEACHED YET UNTIL NANCY SENDS THE PAPERWORK TO THE SENATE LOL

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, what part of " sole Power of Impeachment," has you so dazed and confused? Impeached Trump is impeached when the House says he's impeached. And the House said he's impeached when Pelosi banged her gavel at the passage of Article ! the other night.

I would ask you to explain how the House could have "sole Power of Impeachment" if the Senate is involved but I already know you have no fucking clue.