Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Flash]

The Democrats admitted they all voted for impeachment without having enough evidence.

This is after telling the American people that the evidence was "overwhelming".

Lying bastards

 

[Nostra]

Cryin' Chucky receives his first bitchslap of the trial.

Let the whining and crying begin...........

 

[The Original Tree]

Schummer's Shitty Amendment to Try The House Case All Over Again Via Subpoena Cannon is Tabled.

Dem's are handed their first loss.

Schummer offers another similar Amendment to go through The President's Underwear Drawer.

 

[The Purge]

Impeachment Opening remarks: Jay Sekulow Demolishes Schiff, Pelosi on Executive Privilege: Remember Eric Holder?

During his opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial, President Donald Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow quoted Democrats' own words against them. He condemned the House Democrats' rush to impeach Trump, adding an article of impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress" rather than litigating a matter of executive privilege in court. He quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), each of whom defended Barack Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder when he was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

"Mr. Schiff did say the courts don't really have a role in this. Executive privilege? Why would that matter? It matters because it's based in the Constitution of the United States," Sekulow said. "The president's opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for judicial review."

He quoted law professor Jonathan Turley, who warned, "I can't emphasize this enough...if you impeach a president — if you make a high crime and misdemeanor of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

"On June 28, 2012, Eric Holder became the first attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt. Why? Because President Obama asserted executive privilege," Sekulow noted.

Citing a 2012 op-ed Schiff wrote in Politico, Trump's lawyer said, "With respect to the Holder contempt proceedings, Mr. [impeachment] Manager Schiff wrote, 'the White House assertion [of privilege] is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisors to receive candid advice and information from their top aides."

"Indeed that's correct, not because manager Schiff said it, but because the Constitution requires it," Sekulow added.

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

 

[The Original Tree]

If the marines came in right now and arrested these idiots for treason I wouldn’t be surprised

You folks are just plain batshyte crazy to say something like that. Even a member of Don's defense team disagreed with the specious argument they are making.

Alan Dershowitz said a "technical crime" wasn't needed for impeachment in resurfaced 1998 interview

Billy the Bagman is out there saying a prez can't be indicted. Crazy Al is saying he can be impeached but only if he committed a crime.........which contradicts what he said during Clinton's impeachment. Trump is on film welcoming witness testimony........but he won't allow it.

The admin's defense is a clown show.

Go Crawl Back Up The Ayatollah's Assahollah. We don't want you scumbag trolls in our thread promoting your click bait and propaganda. Nobody should be clicking on Borg 80s Links, period.

 

[The Purge]

Jerry Nadler Suggests Having No Impeachment Witnesses Preferable to Hunter Biden Testifying
BY MATT MARGOLIS JANUARY 20, 2020

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., arrives at the Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Democrats are so afraid of Hunter Biden testifying in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump that they would rather have no impeachment witnesses than risk the country hearing his testimony. During an interview on CBS’s "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Nadler said Democrats would not be willing to negotiate on witnesses for the Senate trial. In fact, he suggested that any attempts by the GOP to block or negotiate on witnesses were tantamount to a cover-up.

“Is there any circumstance in which Democrats would consider, for reciprocity, having Hunter Biden come and testify?” asked CBS’s Margaret Brennan.


“You know, the question of witnesses in any trial, in any trial, all relevant witnesses must be heard,” replied Nadler. “Whether if—if you’re accused of robbing a bank, testi—testimony that I saw him rob the bank or he was somewhere else, he couldn’t have robbed the bank, is admissible. It’s not negotiable whether you have witnesses. And this whole controversy about whether there should be witnesses is just—is really a question of does the Senate want to have a fair trial or do they—or are they part of the cover-up of the president? Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses or even that witnesses should be negotiated is part of the cover-up.”

Read more at link

 

[easyt65]

This is awesome 'reality tv'.

The Democrats are getting DESTROYED for showing up in the Senate - AFTER voting for Impeachment - and declaring they are not ready to present their Impeachment case because THEY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR RUSHED CASE!




.

 

[The Original Tree]

Jerry Nadler Suggests Having No Impeachment Witnesses Preferable to Hunter Biden Testifying
BY MATT MARGOLIS JANUARY 20, 2020

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., arrives at the Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Democrats are so afraid of Hunter Biden testifying in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump that they would rather have no impeachment witnesses than risk the country hearing his testimony. During an interview on CBS’s "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Nadler said Democrats would not be willing to negotiate on witnesses for the Senate trial. In fact, he suggested that any attempts by the GOP to block or negotiate on witnesses were tantamount to a cover-up.

“Is there any circumstance in which Democrats would consider, for reciprocity, having Hunter Biden come and testify?” asked CBS’s Margaret Brennan.


“You know, the question of witnesses in any trial, in any trial, all relevant witnesses must be heard,” replied Nadler. “Whether if—if you’re accused of robbing a bank, testi—testimony that I saw him rob the bank or he was somewhere else, he couldn’t have robbed the bank, is admissible. It’s not negotiable whether you have witnesses. And this whole controversy about whether there should be witnesses is just—is really a question of does the Senate want to have a fair trial or do they—or are they part of the cover-up of the president? Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses or even that witnesses should be negotiated is part of the cover-up.”

Read more at link

Good Post.

This Shampeachment is brought to you by The Re-Election Committee for finding ways to launder Millions of Dollars Putin gave Schummer in to Schummer's campaign Funds, and the Committee to Re-Elect Chuck Schummer and Oust Donald J. Trump.

 

[wamose]

It's really funny how these bug eyed ignoramuses keep trying to sell themselves as righteous and concerned about the constitution. Their phony solemnity isn't fooling anyone either. They should fold up their tent and see if they can get back to doing their job, if that's even possible. If it wasn't for their low information constituents and their MSM butt boys, nobody would believe a damn word they say.

 

[Jitss617]

I hope dems get no witness, but republicans get the whistle blower

 

[The Purge]

Rep. Adam Schiff: Evidence Of The President's Wrongdoing Is Overwhelming....ROTFLMFAO!!!
SO WHERE IS THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that YOU SCUMBAG. LYING DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN BRAGGING ON FOR MONTHS???

 

[The Original Tree]

I think The DemNazis Blink on Calling Witnesses in The End.

Know Why?

Where's Hunter?

 

[The Original Tree]

I hope dems get no witness, but republicans get the whistle blower

Seriously THE SENATE should use this occasion to teach THE HOUSE a LESSON they will NEVER FORGET. What the house did was disgusting and a gross miscarriage of justice.

 

[the other mike]

from the intense rw leg humping going on here, the dems must be kicking Turtleboi's ass down the road and back -

Trump won the first vote - stopping the Dems' subpoena of White House documents.

 

[The Purge]

 

[Rye Catcher]

53 Republicans voted to support McConnell's effort to suppress evidence. This is the first win of many battles goes & for The President.

We an expect every vote to provide evidence to lose 53 - 47 and, potentially, lead to a kangaroo trial.

If so Trump will pump his chest and claim he is innocent, but that will not be the last word. The evidence and the truth will come out, and the public opinion will decide if The President deserves a second term.

 

[Jitss617]

Collins, mitt vote with republicans on the 1st resolution

heheh

 

[JustAGuy1]

Let them whine, I'm sick to death of their hypocrisy. They don't any say at all on how the Senate does this.

 

[The Original Tree]

53 Republicans voted to support McConnell's effort to suppress evidence. This is the first win of many battles goes & for The President.

We an expect every vote to provide evidence to lose 53 - 47 and, potentially, lead to a kangaroo trial.

If so Trump will pump his chest and claim he is innocent, but that will not be the last word. The evidence and the truth will
come out, and the public opinion will decide if The President deserves a second term.

Tabling an Amendment which is an attempt to CHANGE ALREADY agreed upon Rules, you lying SACK OF SCHIFF, is not "Suppressing Evidence"! Get the Hell out of our thread and don't come back Troll. Pay attention Baal Worshipper, The President is going to be elected in a Landslide, no thanks to him, but to YOU. Now get the Hell out of our thread.

 

[The Original Tree]

Collins, mitt vote with republicans on the 1st resolution

heheh

It was good to see Mitt do the right thing. Thanks Mitt.