Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Billy_Bob]

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.

You wont have any control in congress and Trump will be in the white house.... I cant wait to really get things done!

 

[Nostra]

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.

2001?

And when did winning the Electoral College become an impeachable offense?

You are batshit crazy............and stupid. Not a good combination.

 

[jc456]

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????

Only a in leftists mind

 

[jc456]

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.

Here’s the real deal, the demofks knew they wouldn’t get a republican, they didn’t get one in the house! So why would the senate republicans be any different than the house republicans? Folks, any leftist in here believes one would doesn’t have a brain. I know, rhetorical

 

[hadit]

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.

If you know about it, it's not a cover-up.

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

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.

If they don't need witnesses, why call them?

 

[Zorro!]

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.

No he won't. You aren't going to pick up 20 seats. In fact, you could end up -1 with Doug Jones getting skunked.

Fauxcahontas’s Question to Roberts Killed Any Hope of Impeachment Trial Witnesses.

“‘That stunt helped deliver the votes of Lisa and Lamar,’ he added, referring to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, and Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.”
​

Warren's grandstanding ended the charade. That's what happens when you run with nut burgers!

 

[The Original Tree]

Why Impeachment was a Scam!

Obama Bin Spying

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.

No he won't. You aren't going to pick up 20 seats. In fact, you could end up -1 with Doug Jones getting skunked.

Fauxcahontas’s Question to Roberts Killed Any Hope of Impeachment Trial Witnesses.

“‘That stunt helped deliver the votes of Lisa and Lamar,’ he added, referring to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, and Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.”
​

Warren's grandstanding ended the charade. That's what happens when you run with nut burgers!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[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.

You wont have any control in congress and Trump will be in the white house.... I cant wait to really get things done!

What things will be done?

• More cuts in taxes, and greater deficits which will create a national debt when the interest paid will be greater than the revenue collected?

The Donald is well on his way to another bankruptcy, this time it will be the nation, not a business.

• More divisive comments from the White House, a president who is a divider, who riles up the White Supremacists and one day start a Race War.

The Donald is well on his way to create greater divisions among our citizens with his rhetoric at rallies:

"Divide and rule (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Divide and rule - Wikipedia

 

[Zorro!]

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.

You wont have any control in congress and Trump will be in the white house.... I cant wait to really get things done!

What things will be done?

• More cuts in taxes, and greater deficits which will create a national debt when the interest paid will be greater than the revenue collected?...

What a silly claim. 2019 Federal Receipts were $3,622.005B - Interest payments are $575B at a rate of 2.567%.

It would take a Federal Debt of $141,098.753B in order consume all of the Federal debt or 6 TIMES the current debt.

... The Donald is well on his way to another bankruptcy, this time it will be the nation, not a business...

Obama grew the debt faster than GDP with the debt rising from 68.873% of GDP to 104.405% of GDP.

Trump on the other hand ended 2018 (last year we have figures for) at 104.286% a small step in the right direction. The Democrats took over the House after 2018, it will be interesting to see how that effects Debt growth.

... More divisive comments from the White House, a president who is a divider, who riles up the White Supremacists and one day start a Race War...

Double Digit Improvement in Race Relations under Trump:

 

[hunarcy]

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 Biden didn't brag about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor publically until January, 2018, which brought it to Trump's attention, silly one.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

You wont have any control in congress and Trump will be in the white house.... I cant wait to really get things done!

What things will be done?

• More cuts in taxes, and greater deficits which will create a national debt when the interest paid will be greater than the revenue collected?

The Donald is well on his way to another bankruptcy, this time it will be the nation, not a business.

• More divisive comments from the White House, a president who is a divider, who riles up the White Supremacists and one day start a Race War.

The Donald is well on his way to create greater divisions among our citizens with his rhetoric at rallies:

"Divide and rule (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Divide and rule - Wikipedia

Squawk, squawk, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 Biden didn't brag about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor publically until January, 2018, which brought it to Trump's attention, silly one.

Exactly right... Biden Bragged about criminal conduct on TV while the statute of limitations was not expired.. Not very bright...

 

[task0778]

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.

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.

If they don't need witnesses, why call them?

Exactly. As Lamar Alexander said when he announced his opposition to more witnesses, he believes that Trump did it but his wrong-doing did not rise to the level of impeachment. There were many Repubs that agree with him, so there was no point in continuing to drag out the trial.

There's a reason why it takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president. It ought to be so egregious that a bipartisan effort to impeach and remove him would be made, bolstered by a strong public opinion that favors such an action. Which of course didn't happen, so the issue should be left to the voters to decide. That's how it's supposed to work if the 67 votes for removal aren't there. And BTW the Senate as well as the House will also answer to the voters for their decisions and what they did too.

 

[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

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 Biden didn't brag about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor publically until January, 2018, which brought it to Trump's attention, silly one.

Yup!

Trump’s vigilant eye was captured when “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution” a reference to Biden’s description of his extortive effort to force Shokin’s removal during a January 2018 event.

 

[Zorro!]

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.

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.

If they don't need witnesses, why call them?

Exactly. As Lamar Alexander said when he announced his opposition to more witnesses, he believes that Trump did it but his wrong-doing did not rise to the level of impeachment. There were many Repubs that agree with him, so there was no point in continuing to drag out the trial.

There's a reason why it takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president. It ought to be so egregious that a bipartisan effort to impeach and remove him would be made, bolstered by a strong public opinion that favors such an action. Which of course didn't happen, so the issue should be left to the voters to decide. That's how it's supposed to work if the 67 votes for removal aren't there. And BTW the Senate as well as the House will also answer to the voters for their decisions and what they did too.

Democrats were trying to undo a past election and strip a sitting President from the ballot on all 50 states. So much for all their "count every vote" crap. They support elections that they win, and no others.

 

[jc456]

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 Biden didn't brag about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor publically until January, 2018, which brought it to Trump's attention, silly one.

Wasn’t there also an election in Ukraine?

 

[jc456]

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.

If they don't need witnesses, why call them?

Exactly. As Lamar Alexander said when he announced his opposition to more witnesses, he believes that Trump did it but his wrong-doing did not rise to the level of impeachment. There were many Repubs that agree with him, so there was no point in continuing to drag out the trial.

There's a reason why it takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president. It ought to be so egregious that a bipartisan effort to impeach and remove him would be made, bolstered by a strong public opinion that favors such an action. Which of course didn't happen, so the issue should be left to the voters to decide. That's how it's supposed to work if the 67 votes for removal aren't there. And BTW the Senate as well as the House will also answer to the voters for their decisions and what they did too.

Democrats were trying to undo a past election and strip a sitting President from the ballot on all 50 states. So much for all their "count every vote" crap. They support elections that they win, and no others.

Again, not one house republican voted to impeach. 192.and the demofks thought one out 53 would in the senate? Now you know why they’re demofks! Odds weren’t on their side. Zero times any number is,...... zero?

 

[toobfreak]

and trump wins only because of the Electoral College

So cute. If Trump wins ONLY BECAUSE of the Electoral College. What the delicate delinquent doesn't understand who professes to be an expert on the matters is that is THE ONLY WAY A PRESIDENT CAN WIN.

he will once again be impeached, and that time convicted of Obstruction of Justice.

I truly hope you Tards try. A second impeachment attempt during Trump's 2nd term would surely convince many more people that the Democrat-Socialists party is so far out of control as to now represent a true danger to this nation and does not representing America but only its own mad lust for power.