Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Rye Catcher]

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Well if you believe my comment is funny, I would expect you to provide evidence of your question, which was one, IMO, more of a statement, than a question.

Unless you believe the accused actions to withhold money from Ukraine, was because trump is opposed to corruption, one must wonder why he didn't bring this up in 2017 and 2018? Why he went after the Biden's when the former VP was leading in polls? And why he has obstructed subpoenas by ordering material witnesses to ignore them, and his staff to ignore documents of relevance.

 

[Billiejeens]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Well if you believe my comment is funny, I would expect you to provide evidence of your question, which was one, IMO, more of a statement, than a question.

Unless you believe the accused actions to withhold money from Ukraine, was because trump is opposed to corruption, one must wonder why he didn't bring this up in 2017 and 2018? Why he went after the Biden's when the former VP was leading in polls? And why he has obstructed subpoenas by ordering material witnesses to ignore them, and his staff to ignore documents of relevance.

So uninformed.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Hear ye

Hear ye

The village retard has rendered an opinion.

"Here ye, Hear ye", is not an opinion.

 

[Zorro!]

Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses.

I guess I was wrong. Some people are stupid and believe trump was denied due process.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

 

[Zorro!]

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

COULD TODAY GET ANY BETTER? YES, YES IT COULD.


Pismo @Pismo_B
https://twitter.com/Pismo_B/status/1223275776163794945

Hey @SpeakerPelosi, Guess what

dreamers are screaming!

You’re a LIAR

!

You’re a LIAR

!

You’re a LIAR

!




20.8K
8:04 AM - Jan 31, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

16.7K people are talking about this

 

[Billiejeens]

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Hear ye

Hear ye

The village retard has rendered an opinion.

"Here ye, Hear ye", is not an opinion.

Okay - retard.

 

[BS Filter]

How many witnesses were called by Republicans?

How many did they Republicans subpoena?

How many of the subpoenas were ignored by the order of the Defendant?

Nobody is so stupid to believe trump was denied due process. He and his pettifogger lawyers were incompetent, and the only reason he got 51 votes is because he would have NINE MONTHS to attack a Republican Senator who didn't bend over and kiss his ass.

The fact is, if witnesses and documents existed to provide probative exculpatory evidence the defense would have been different. The fact that it doesn't exist, is telling.

Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses.

I guess I was wrong. Some people are stupid and believe trump was denied due process.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

The subpoenas were challenged in court, which is a Constitutional right.

 

[beagle9]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Well if you believe my comment is funny, I would expect you to provide evidence of your question, which was one, IMO, more of a statement, than a question.

Unless you believe the accused actions to withhold money from Ukraine, was because trump is opposed to corruption, one must wonder why he didn't bring this up in 2017 and 2018? Why he went after the Biden's when the former VP was leading in polls? And why he has obstructed subpoenas by ordering material witnesses to ignore them, and his staff to ignore documents of relevance.

You attack Trump who merely asked about corruption, but ignore the real corruption that actually came out of the mouth of Joe Biden himself. Makes you a political hack instead of someone truly seeking justice pertaining to the corruption in Ukraine.

 

[Billiejeens]

I guess I was wrong. Some people are stupid and believe trump was denied due process.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

The Senate never hears testimony not obtained, even if not used, during the house impeachment.

They heard everything that the house wanted them to hear.

Where do these idiots get the idea that juries get together and say - hey we would like to call someone witnesses now?

Literal insanity.

 

[Auld Phart]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Well if you believe my comment is funny, I would expect you to provide evidence of your question, which was one, IMO, more of a statement, than a question.

Unless you believe the accused actions to withhold money from Ukraine, was because trump is opposed to corruption, one must wonder why he didn't bring this up in 2017 and 2018? Why he went after the Biden's when the former VP was leading in polls? And why he has obstructed subpoenas by ordering material witnesses to ignore them, and his staff to ignore documents of relevance.

Are the Bidens the only thing that changed in the Ukraine last year?

I seem to remember a new president being elected, on an anti-corruption platform.

Wonder why no one on the Left seems to remember that?

It sure didn't come up during the House inquiries, or the Senate trial.

Or, did I miss it on one of my infrequent piss breaks?

 

[Zorro!]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.



See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

So, because it wouldn't keep Trump off the ballot, they dropped it?​

This ^^^ is an unsubstantiated opinion, and IMO a Conspiracy Theory.

Well if you believe my comment is funny, I would expect you to provide evidence of your question, which was one, IMO, more of a statement, than a question.

Unless you believe the accused actions to withhold money from Ukraine, was because trump is opposed to corruption, one must wonder why he didn't bring this up in 2017 and 2018? Why he went after the Biden's when the former VP was leading in polls? And why he has obstructed subpoenas by ordering material witnesses to ignore them, and his staff to ignore documents of relevance.

Your case was always the height of silliness

American saw right through it, The Biden Rule was a stake through it's heart​

 

[beagle9]

That Tom Styer is a race baiting punk. Cavuto had him on today, and that shocked me. I wouldn't give that baiter the time of day. Back on topic.

 

[Zorro!]

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

The Senate never hears testimony not obtained, even if not used, during the house impeachment.

They heard everything that the house wanted them to hear.

Where do these idiots get the idea that juries get together and say - hey we would like to call someone witnesses now?

Literal insanity.

I'm proud of the Senate for finally standing up to them, well, except for Benedict Romney

 

[Rye Catcher]

I guess I was wrong. Some people are stupid and believe trump was denied due process.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

This is not a judgement, it is an opinion. Much like supreme court decisions, arguments are made with opinions on both issues seen differently by different folks.

All trials include evidence, both incriminatory and exculpatory, presented by Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers as practiced all across our country for over two centuries.

The right to a trial by jury, one of the most time-honored inheritances from Magna Carta in United States law, refers to the guarantee that courts will depend on a body of citizens to render judgments in most civil and criminal cases.

https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge-orders/GMS-Voir Dire Questions (Criminal).pdf

May only the two Independent Senators would answer voir dire questions honestly.

 

[beagle9]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

The Senate never hears testimony not obtained, even if not used, during the house impeachment.

They heard everything that the house wanted them to hear.

Where do these idiots get the idea that juries get together and say - hey we would like to call someone witnesses now?

Literal insanity.

I'm proud of the Senate for finally standing up to them, well, except for Benedict Romney

He's just butt hurt because him and Trump had it out in the past, and Trump won.

 

[Zorro!]

How many did they Republicans subpoena?

How many of the subpoenas were ignored by the order of the Defendant?

Nobody is so stupid to believe trump was denied due process. He and his pettifogger lawyers were incompetent, and the only reason he got 51 votes is because he would have NINE MONTHS to attack a Republican Senator who didn't bend over and kiss his ass.

The fact is, if witnesses and documents existed to provide probative exculpatory evidence the defense would have been different. The fact that it doesn't exist, is telling.

Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses.

I guess I was wrong. Some people are stupid and believe trump was denied due process.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Tell us who the witnesses were that were called by Republicans. Go ahead.

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

The subpoenas were challenged in court, which is a Constitutional right.

The House thinks it's above the Law.
The Senate vote will show that they are not.

Jennifer Rubin is a "Conservative"​

 

[BS Filter]

The Democrats here still haven't gotten it through their head that the House manglers don't have any power once the Senate tries the articles. The Constitution is clear, the House has sole power during hearings and the Senate has sole power during the trial.

 

[Zorro!]

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

The Senate never hears testimony not obtained, even if not used, during the house impeachment.

They heard everything that the house wanted them to hear.

Where do these idiots get the idea that juries get together and say - hey we would like to call someone witnesses now?

Literal insanity.

I'm proud of the Senate for finally standing up to them, well, except for Benedict Romney

He's just butt hurt because him and Trump had it out in the past, and Trump won.

Actually, Trump backed him all the way in 2012. Romney just turned into Benedict Arnold because he is a very small man.

Pierre Delecto in the Hot Seat: Utah Lawmaker Files Legislation to Recall Sitting US Senator

 

[Zorro!]

The Democrats here still haven't gotten it through their head that the House manglers don't have any power once the Senate tries the articles. The Constitution is clear, the House has sole power during hearings and the Senate has sole power during the trial.

The House doesn't think the Constitution applied to them.

 

[Billiejeens]

Zero.

Now, tell us how many witnesses and documents were subpoenaed by the Democrats and were told by the Defendant to ignore them?

They were challenged on the basis of being invalid. The protocol in such a situation is to go to the courts to get a ruling.

YOUR House Clowns withdrew them instead of going to court for a ruling. Why?

Why? Biddable fools like you believe what you've been told over and over by Trump&Co. A Big F'n Lie.

Manager Schiff explained in detail the reason, and the reason if you hadn't had your head in the sand, is the hearing was put off until Dec. 10th. Well after the Election this year.

See: House Democrats pull subpoena for ex-Trump national security official

The Biden Rule Blows your claims to smithereens.

Biden cited multiple precedents showing that the Senate was not obligated in any way to accept new evidence or testimony regardless of what the House impeachment managers desired.

“At present, House of Representatives Impeachment Managers are taking the position that the Senate is required to hold a full trial with live witnesses and evidentiary proceedings,” Biden wrote to his Democrat colleagues. “The House of Representatives took the opposite position in 1986 when it argued that the Senate should summarily convict Judge Harry Claiborne without taking any evidence or hearing any witnesses[.]”

Biden’s arguments from 1999 directly refute claims from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and other Democrat impeachment managers that the Senate must be required to seek testimony from witnesses the House itself refused to subpoena, such as fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

While the Senate eventually requested the testimony of three witnesses in the impeachment trial of Clinton–Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal each of those witnesses had already been deposed before the House of Representatives or a federal grand jury following lengthy litigation. The Senate refused to call new witnesses whose previous testimony hadn’t already formed a basis for the impeachment articles against Clinton.

You can read Biden’s full memorandum here.

Biden Rule Blows Dems Witness Argument To Smitherens​

The Senate never hears testimony not obtained, even if not used, during the house impeachment.

They heard everything that the house wanted them to hear.

Where do these idiots get the idea that juries get together and say - hey we would like to call someone witnesses now?

Literal insanity.

I'm proud of the Senate for finally standing up to them, well, except for Benedict Romney

He was given a pass by McConnell once he counted votes. He and Susan Collins.
I get why Collins needs it. And she proved herself with kavanaugh.
Dont know why Romney thinks its good for him.