Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[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 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.

He's an angry jealous backstabbing creep who figures he can withstand the heat from voters back home. I think the ability to recall Senators that UT is now looking at is a great concept.


Hah! Ted Cruz Mimics Nancy Pelosi’s SOTU Clap as GOP Senators End Pelosi’s Sham Impeachment

 

[WEATHER53]

Overwhelming evidence and certainty. We ain’t got that, provide it to us or we shriek foul
Lib101

 

[Nostra]

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

Schifferbrains being in a hurry because there is an election coming up isn't grounds for impeachment ya fucking moron.

 

[Nostra]

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?

They know that they have faggot fucking partisan retards like rye to push their false narrative.

He is really stupid.

 

[Nostra]

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?

So Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses, yet you claim the President had due process. Time to get honest.

If the Senate had approved a trial with witnesses (and documents) both sides would have the power of the subpoena which would be reviewed by the Chief Justice for relevance.

Impeachment was only an indictment, no trier of fact decided if the evidence in the trial was considered Sufficient to convict the defendant.

THESE ARE FACTS, INDISPUTABLE.

I don't believe you are stupid, I believe you are dishonest (or you might be lying to yourself).

How many new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, Genius?

Zero sound about right?

YOUR House Clowns had 13 witnesses testify in the trial, and submitted thousands of documents. Get a brain of your own and stop letting your handlers in the Dimwinger party tell you what to think.

 

[Nostra]

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

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?​

Dimwingers think you can't have voters deciding who is President.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Because there was a new President of Ukraine coming in. Trump was vetting him, moron.

The rest of your post is just more of your pathetic lies.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Because there was a new President of Ukraine coming in. Trump was vetting him, moron.

The rest of your post is just more of your pathetic lies.

An Idiot-gram written by a coward ^^^, variety, ad hominem and proof s/he is incapable of writing an expository rebuttal. Sad.

 

[Terri4Trump]

 

[Nostra]

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.

Because there was a new President of Ukraine coming in. Trump was vetting him, moron.

The rest of your post is just more of your pathetic lies.

An Idiot-gram written by a coward ^^^, variety, ad hominem and proof s/he is incapable of writing an expository rebuttal. Sad.

So you were ignorant of the fact the Ukraine had just elected a new President who ran on ending corruption.

Why am I not shocked you are clueless?

 

[toobfreak]

Bullshit.

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.

I literally sat there for days on end watching as Devin Nunes and others requested this or that person be brought to testify and answer questions and EVERY time, Adam Schiff flatly told them to GO POUND SAND.

Schiff told them he wouldn't allow any witnesses related to a SHAM investigation, a DEBUNKED investigation, despite the fact that:

1. No investigation had ever even been started into Burisma to debunk anything! So how could anyone know it was a sham?
2. No one in the House could say WHO debunked it, HOW, or with what evidence, people or documentation!

YET, the House was maintaining that the Burisma questions and interest by Trump were and MUST BE purely for personal political gains and advantages deserving impeachment!

THE HEART of the House's entire case against Trump to impeach him for, was over a totally unqualified, uninvestigated, buried, never proven claim that was hands off to claim, hands off to look into, and totally hands off to even permit the slightest test of because it just happened to tie itself back to the one person the Democrats most hope to have a chance of beating Trump with!

And just as the FBI shut down and buried the criminal case against Hillary, even destroying the evidence, to keep her in the running, the House not only tried to bury Biden and Burisma, but they tried to run Trump out of town to protect. And I want to know:

JUST WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS HIDING ?

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Because there was a new President of Ukraine coming in. Trump was vetting him, moron.

The rest of your post is just more of your pathetic lies.

An Idiot-gram written by a coward ^^^, variety, ad hominem and proof s/he is incapable of writing an expository rebuttal. Sad.

While Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry self indulge their abitious fantasies, Trump's engaged in The Work Of The American People:

Al-Qaeda Terrorist Leader Arrested In Phoenix On Murder Charges.

Probably a nice guy triggered by frustration over global warming​

Federal law enforcement officials arrested an Al-Qaeda terrorist leader in Phoenix, Arizona, late this week on murder charges filed by the Iraqi government.

How in the Hell Did He Get Into The US?

Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, a 42-year-old Iraqi national was “wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.”

An Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant for Ahmed and subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.

“According to the information provided by the Government of Iraq in support of its extradition request, Ahmed served as the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, which planned operations targeting Iraqi police,” the DOJ added. “Ahmed and other members of the Al-Qaeda group shot and killed a first lieutenant in the Fallujah Police Directorate and a police officer in the Fallujah Police Directorate, on or about June 1, 2006, and October 3, 2006, respectively.”​

The DOJ noted that the decision to extradite him to Iraq will ultimately be made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The answer will be yes.

Trump appears to confirm killing of al Qaeda leader in Yemen via retweet.

Rimi's death, if confirmed, would add to a string of recent successes for U.S. counterterrorism operations. In early January, the U.S. used a Reaper drone to wipe out Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general responsible for dozens of attacks on American troops in Iraq.

And last year, U.S. special forces troops killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State terrorist group or ISIS, in a raid inside Syria.

 

[Olde Europe]

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

Sure it is, and, for folks so monumentally ignorant and demented to be unaware that Republicans called witnesses during the House impeachment inquiry, it has the very admirable distinction of being not wrong.

 

[Nostra]

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

Sure it is, and, for folks so monumentally ignorant and demented to be unaware that Republicans called witnesses during the House impeachment inquiry, it has the very admirable distinction of being not wrong.

Please list these witnesses...........

 

[Nostra]

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

He's an angry jealous backstabbing creep who figures he can withstand the heat from voters back home. I think the ability to recall Senators that UT is now looking at is a great concept.


Hah! Ted Cruz Mimics Nancy Pelosi’s SOTU Clap as GOP Senators End Pelosi’s Sham Impeachment

He should do it to crazy Nancy, imagine reaction.

 

[Ame®icano]

From NYT yesterday.

My question is, should this be acquittal, or case dismissal?

 

[Nostra]

From NYT yesterday.

View attachment 304008

My question is, should this be acquittal, or case dismissal?

Both.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From NYT yesterday.

View attachment 304008

My question is, should this be acquittal, or case dismissal?

In a dismissal it must be done with prejudice or they can refile. I would go with acquittal as that indicates the charges were proven deficient and can not be refiled.

 

[Rye Catcher]

From NYT yesterday.

View attachment 304008

My question is, should this be acquittal, or case dismissal?

It will be an acquittal, if dismissed the possibility if the Senate changes hands in Jan 2001, and trump wins only because of the Electoral College, he will once again be impeached, and that time convicted of Obstruction of Justice.