Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

Schiff is Dishonorable.

Schiff is a DEMOCRAT.
Is there a difference?
The Senate was right to vote Friday against hearing new witness testimony at President Trump’s impeachment trial. The Democrats’ demand for new witnesses at the trial was a red herring – a talking point that was nonsense.

Bug-eyed Schiff and the other impeachment managers claim that there have been no witnesses in the trial. They said before the Senate voted 51-49 Friday to block more witnesses that if Republicans did note vote to approve subpoenas for former National Security Adviser John Bolton, among other top current and former administration officials, that the trial will be a “sham” – an exercise in “cover-up.” You can’t have a real trial, was their refrain, unless witnesses are called.

It is nonsense. There have been plenty of witnesses. Schiff’s problem is that the additional witnesses he wanted to call would not change what has already been proved in any meaningful way.

The House presentation has featured a mountain of hearsay, press reports read into the record, witnesses testifying about their opinions on subjects they are utterly unqualified to opine on, and so on. None of that would be permitted in a judicial trial.

There have been over a dozen witnesses at the impeachment trial. They have not physically come into the Senate and testified. Rather, they testified in the House investigation. Their testimony is all in the record of the Senate trial, and both the House managers and the president’s counsel relied on it in making their arguments.

That is actually not much of a departure from judicial trials.

The consensus position of many Republican senators is what Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced as his conclusion on Thursday night: The Democratic House managers proved their case that the president pressured Ukraine to conduct investigations that might help him politically; but the allegation does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense – because there ultimately were no investigations, because Ukraine got its U.S. aid and was not harmed, because it was lawful for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son for purposes of rooting out corruption, and so on.

Republicans have drawn that conclusion based on hundreds of hours of witness testimony set forth in thousands of pages of transcripts and available for viewing on video recordings. There has been plenty of witness testimony.

If Bolton testified in a manner that is consistent with press reporting about his soon-to-be-published memoir, it would prove that the president pressured Ukraine for investigations.

The House managers have already proved that.

There is no need to belabor the point. The Democrats’ problem is not that they’ve been stopped from proving their case. They did prove their case … but it's nothing anyone is going to get removed over. And even if Bolton testified, that wouldn’t change.

Andrew McCarthy: In Trump impeachment trial, Senate right to block new witness testimony
 
Shitts for brains was actually crying about no witnesses heard by Senate.
Senate does not hear witnesses. They begged like children for the rules to be bent or broken
 
Last edited:
Shitts for brainscwas actually crying about no witnesses heard by Senate.
Senate does not hear witnesses. They begged like children for the rules to be bent or broken
adam-schiff-impeachment.jpg
 
If the stupid House Dimms would have let the subpoenas go through the legal process, they could have subpoenaed Bolton themselves.

They are so damn stupid.

Obstruction of Congress for exercising your legal rights?

Huh????
 
Schifferbrains is about to cry again.
hiroshima went off again as well. Too fking funny, she threatened the lawyer for trump, cipollone,with lying on the floor. they truly have no dignity.
She should be Censured


We should send her home.
maybe to school at least. She should learn what impeachment is. truly a shame that she represents in my senate chamber without the knowledge of the constitution she supposedly swore an oath toward. ignorance is large in her.
In her and many others like her in that party.
 
Yeah and them trying to remove a president who swore he would be against all that, and then that president started to doing something about all that, and yet unbelievably him doing his job became the rub to those trying to remove him. Can't make this crazy crap up, but whoop there it is.
 

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.
The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?
The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The House essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.
The House is nothing like a Grand Jury. The House heard from 18 witnesses, buried one of them, will not release the transcript and then the House presented their case to the Senate. If the Senate thought they needed more witnesses and/or documentation they would have asked for it. They didn't, and now it's time to vote!
The whole thing was a political grandstanding put on by the Democrats for the upcoming election. They used our processes just like they always do in order to try and manipulate them or bend them into pretzels just to get their way. They can't win on their record, so they resort to all kinds of shady tactics to win. I think they have exposed their tactics big time in the last 11 years. It has really taken this nation to now stand behind Trump through the thick and the thin to bring the Democrat tactics out, because it really made them desperate against him, and that's when they were caught in their bullcrap because of their desperation.
 
Trump and the Senate is the biggest coverup in American history. Trump the Pimp, and the Senate his Whores. A trial without witnesses is a Monkey Trial. Senate actually hates the Democrats more than they hate Trump and they do and they support him out of fear of repercussions.
 
Trump and the Senate is the biggest coverup in American history. Trump the Pimp, and the Senate his Whores. A trial without witnesses is a Monkey Trial. Senate actually hates the Democrats more than they hate Trump and they do and they support him out of fear of repercussions.
Um, YOUR House Clowns had 13 witnesses and submitted thousands of documents.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.
 
Schiff is Dishonorable.

Schiff is a DEMOCRAT.
Is there a difference?
The Senate was right to vote Friday against hearing new witness testimony at President Trump’s impeachment trial. The Democrats’ demand for new witnesses at the trial was a red herring – a talking point that was nonsense.

Bug-eyed Schiff and the other impeachment managers claim that there have been no witnesses in the trial. They said before the Senate voted 51-49 Friday to block more witnesses that if Republicans did note vote to approve subpoenas for former National Security Adviser John Bolton, among other top current and former administration officials, that the trial will be a “sham” – an exercise in “cover-up.” You can’t have a real trial, was their refrain, unless witnesses are called.

It is nonsense. There have been plenty of witnesses. Schiff’s problem is that the additional witnesses he wanted to call would not change what has already been proved in any meaningful way.

The House presentation has featured a mountain of hearsay, press reports read into the record, witnesses testifying about their opinions on subjects they are utterly unqualified to opine on, and so on. None of that would be permitted in a judicial trial.

There have been over a dozen witnesses at the impeachment trial. They have not physically come into the Senate and testified. Rather, they testified in the House investigation. Their testimony is all in the record of the Senate trial, and both the House managers and the president’s counsel relied on it in making their arguments.

That is actually not much of a departure from judicial trials.

The consensus position of many Republican senators is what Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced as his conclusion on Thursday night: The Democratic House managers proved their case that the president pressured Ukraine to conduct investigations that might help him politically; but the allegation does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense – because there ultimately were no investigations, because Ukraine got its U.S. aid and was not harmed, because it was lawful for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son for purposes of rooting out corruption, and so on.

Republicans have drawn that conclusion based on hundreds of hours of witness testimony set forth in thousands of pages of transcripts and available for viewing on video recordings. There has been plenty of witness testimony.

If Bolton testified in a manner that is consistent with press reporting about his soon-to-be-published memoir, it would prove that the president pressured Ukraine for investigations.

The House managers have already proved that.

There is no need to belabor the point. The Democrats’ problem is not that they’ve been stopped from proving their case. They did prove their case … but it's nothing anyone is going to get removed over. And even if Bolton testified, that wouldn’t change.

Andrew McCarthy: In Trump impeachment trial, Senate right to block new witness testimony
They didn't prove their case, because their case was pure bullcrap that is tied in with their TDS and political grandstanding for political purposes. Everyone knows it, and they will suffer at the poles for their bullcrap.
 
Trump and the Senate is the biggest coverup in American history. Trump the Pimp, and the Senate his Whores. A trial without witnesses is a Monkey Trial. Senate actually hates the Democrats more than they hate Trump and they do and they support him out of fear of repercussions.
You can't remove a President because you hate him. Try winning the election.
 
A side note - Liz Warren tells her potentials that they have really made her a better candidate this year ?? LOL.,.... So her potentials are having to train her for the job, because she is such a mess that she had to rely on them to make her better (giving her presidential advice) ?? Yeah we need a leader like that right ??? LOL.

Worse, who is she listening to that is training her for the job (making her better) ?? Ok I'm done. No need to respond. Back on topic.
 
Trump and the Senate is the biggest coverup in American history. Trump the Pimp, and the Senate his Whores. A trial without witnesses is a Monkey Trial. Senate actually hates the Democrats more than they hate Trump and they do and they support him out of fear of repercussions.
You can't remove a President because you hate him. Try winning the election.
They think that no one remembers their bullcrap over the years, where as they create disasters but then act as if they had nothing to do with them. Look at immigration, safety in the big cities like Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit etc, and look at their policies that enhanced all the bad they have done. Yet they want to keep it all going year after year after year. They are a misguided bunch for sure, and a victim of their own making.
 
Trump and the Senate is the biggest coverup in American history. Trump the Pimp, and the Senate his Whores. A trial without witnesses is a Monkey Trial. Senate actually hates the Democrats more than they hate Trump and they do and they support him out of fear of repercussions.

Factually incorrect
 
Put the crack pipe down.


Listen Chumly S Dunbar, or whatever your snargly name is, when I did coke it was real
back in the 80's....
I've never even seen crack. _ And btw....

{
Ahead of Wednesday’s final vote on the impeachment articles, there remains some uncertainty about potential last-minute efforts by Democrats to perhaps offer a censure resolution, though it would fail if McConnell is able to round up at least 51 GOP votes.

Republicans defeat Democratic bids to hear witnesses in Trump trial }

(and no I don't read Politico as a general rule)

And smack now too?
 
Murkowski when talking about The House and how corrupt The Inquiry was said that it is sad how Congress Failed. The Impeachment should have never made it to The Senate if things were done by the book and with Due Process.

Dems abdicated their personal responsibilities which works great for getting welfare and other freebies but not so well in an impeachment where you wail “do our job for us and bring the rope to hang yourself or we will screech FOUL in perpetuity”

Define Due Process, and in what manner did the Democrats fail.

Is there really any point address such a stupid question after the House utterly denied the President Due Process throughout his own entire impeachment inquiry?

Bullshit.
 
due process of law

n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and is applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flows many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com


If any due process was denied, it was denied by Moscow Mitch and his successful effort to eliminate witnesses and documents sure to convince the American People, if not the Senators, of trump's guilt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top