Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[joaquinmiller]

Go ahead and explain to me, again, in great detail, how the President's lawyers said they weren't legal. When you're done, I'll link, again, the Court decision on the validity of the impeachment inquiry.

You do know lawyers just say crap sometimes, don't you?

You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.

There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.

When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.

The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

Ahhh...............the Obama appointed hack who spent 10 years working for Patrick Leahy.

Friend of Andrew Weissman, the guy who ran the Mueller Inquisition, and didn't recuse herself from rulings on the Inquisition..........


More shenanigans from this leftist....

More on the leftist judge who approved Mueller's grand jury

One is a federal judge, one is a blogger. You've yet to show an argument worth making.

 

[Nostra]

Well..........NO. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. This is why we have inquiries and trials. The Democrats have totally sucked at both. They have no idea what they're doing. That's obvious even to a non-legal like me. It's ok. 2024 is not that far away. Maybe by some miracle the Democrats will clean up their shit by then.

I'm hoping.

They put on a good case. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't hold him under until he stops thrashing.

LOL. They put on a laughable case. And it would be funny if not for all the damage it has caused.

You know, mucky, they mentioned and quoted that legal decision you hadn't heard about several times in that 'laughable' case. And the Trump defense ignored it and lied about the implications. In its Saturday presentation, Trump's defense told lies that would have had them sanctioned in a Court of law. Laughable case. That's a joke.

Ok. So what then? Let's just stipulate the inquiry is valid. (Choking) They want these people to come in and testify, they still have to subpoena them. The WH is not subservient to the Congress. You have to have a subpoena. Then you have to negotiate with the WH over what they'll testify to and any other limits. Or have a court enforce it. Or maybe Fatass can chase them down and have them arrested so he can keep them in the Capitol dungeon until they talk. Those are the options. And even then, none of these WH people is likely to testify to anything we haven't already heard.

Several witnesses did testify under subpoena. Several ignored subpoenas. One, I think, challenged a subpoena, and after delays, the House withdrew it. The McGahn subpoena was issued in April. The ruling, in favor of the House, was issued at the end of November, and immediately appealed by the Administration.

Arguments of House process notwithstanding, the Senate has an Impeachment trial in progress. It's understandable, at this point, that Trump supporters would want the House to spend a year-and-a-half in court first. It certainly beats arguing facts or hearing testimony about those facts.

And your side wants the House to have powers the Constitution doesn't give them.

The fact Nazi and her Clowns still refuse to accept the results of the election in 2016, and have openly stated they don't want the voters to decide the 2020 election, doesn't change the fact that they aren't Dictators. In America we have a system. Just because it doesn't fit their political whims doesn't override our Constitutional separation of powers, as much as you would like it to.

 

[Cosmos]

You're right. I don't give a rat's posterior what you say, OldeNaziBastard. I don't need to deal with your chickenshit butthurt problems. If I have to sit here and read the same garbage Wobbly cranks out, we'll just sideline you.

I see, fecal freak, you might now have had a glimpse at what "co-equal" actually means, and is supposed to entail. If you think about it for a while (I know, but...), you might even realize why the House threw that potato into the other, GOP-controlled chamber of that same co-equal branch, for them to deal with the obstructionist's obstruction. Maybe, or so would be the hope, Trump could show some more respect in that friendlier environment, and the Senate might live up to their much-touted stature, "deliberative body" and all. As it turned out, though, Trump's contempt knows no limits, and neither does his disrespect for the Constitution. Whether or not the Senate musters the integrity to conduct a "trial" deserving that description remains to be seen.

Thanks for the compliments, though - I couldn't hope to deliver the clobbering you so richly deserve as eloquently and poignantly as Wobbly. Your shameful subservience remains the same, though, as does your imperviousness to reason, evidence, and facts.

Just shut the fuck up Adolph.

 

[Nostra]

LOL. They put on a laughable case. And it would be funny if not for all the damage it has caused.

You know, mucky, they mentioned and quoted that legal decision you hadn't heard about several times in that 'laughable' case. And the Trump defense ignored it and lied about the implications. In its Saturday presentation, Trump's defense told lies that would have had them sanctioned in a Court of law. Laughable case. That's a joke.

Ok. So what then? Let's just stipulate the inquiry is valid. (Choking) They want these people to come in and testify, they still have to subpoena them. The WH is not subservient to the Congress. You have to have a subpoena. Then you have to negotiate with the WH over what they'll testify to and any other limits. Or have a court enforce it. Or maybe Fatass can chase them down and have them arrested so he can keep them in the Capitol dungeon until they talk. Those are the options. And even then, none of these WH people is likely to testify to anything we haven't already heard.

Several witnesses did testify under subpoena. Several ignored subpoenas. One, I think, challenged a subpoena, and after delays, the House withdrew it. The McGahn subpoena was issued in April. The ruling, in favor of the House, was issued at the end of November, and immediately appealed by the Administration.

Arguments of House process notwithstanding, the Senate has an Impeachment trial in progress. It's understandable, at this point, that Trump supporters would want the House to spend a year-and-a-half in court first. It certainly beats arguing facts or hearing testimony about those facts.

Well, this isn't the Senate's fault. This crap all should have been settled in the House Judiciary as is customary. Then they only tie-up one House committee instead of the entire Senate. Pelosi and Schiff did this. Why should the Senate be held responsible to clean up their mess?

It's not a question of fault. The Senate is responsible for conducting a fair trial. Some people think that means a rigorous search for truth and some don't.

Trump's legal arguments are bogus. They're not going to win a single case, but they can drag it out for years. I think Obstruction of Congress is a valid charge, and that an honest Senate - aware of its own powers and prerogatives - would stuff it up Trump's ass when they show him the door. (Which won't happen, in this life or the next.)

The Senate listens to the case the House brings, and renders a verdict. The Senate has no responsibility to conduct investigations during an impeachment.

Your beef is with YOUR House Clowns who refused to do their job.

 

[Nostra]

You know, mucky, they mentioned and quoted that legal decision you hadn't heard about several times in that 'laughable' case. And the Trump defense ignored it and lied about the implications. In its Saturday presentation, Trump's defense told lies that would have had them sanctioned in a Court of law. Laughable case. That's a joke.

Ok. So what then? Let's just stipulate the inquiry is valid. (Choking) They want these people to come in and testify, they still have to subpoena them. The WH is not subservient to the Congress. You have to have a subpoena. Then you have to negotiate with the WH over what they'll testify to and any other limits. Or have a court enforce it. Or maybe Fatass can chase them down and have them arrested so he can keep them in the Capitol dungeon until they talk. Those are the options. And even then, none of these WH people is likely to testify to anything we haven't already heard.

Several witnesses did testify under subpoena. Several ignored subpoenas. One, I think, challenged a subpoena, and after delays, the House withdrew it. The McGahn subpoena was issued in April. The ruling, in favor of the House, was issued at the end of November, and immediately appealed by the Administration.

Arguments of House process notwithstanding, the Senate has an Impeachment trial in progress. It's understandable, at this point, that Trump supporters would want the House to spend a year-and-a-half in court first. It certainly beats arguing facts or hearing testimony about those facts.

Well, this isn't the Senate's fault. This crap all should have been settled in the House Judiciary as is customary. Then they only tie-up one House committee instead of the entire Senate. Pelosi and Schiff did this. Why should the Senate be held responsible to clean up their mess?

It's not a question of fault. The Senate is responsible for conducting a fair trial. Some people think that means a rigorous search for truth and some don't.

Trump's legal arguments are bogus. They're not going to win a single case, but they can drag it out for years. I think Obstruction of Congress is a valid charge, and that an honest Senate - aware of its own powers and prerogatives - would stuff it up Trump's ass when they show him the door. (Which won't happen, in this life or the next.)

Well, it looks like Mitch just came out and said they don't have the votes to block witnesses. So this thing is going to drag out. That's ok though. Like I've said, I'll be real interested to hear a good accounting of the Biden crime family corruption that led to this inquiry. I hope the WH defense team agrees with me.

Cool.

Bring on Schifferbrains, swear him in.

 

[Nostra]

You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.

There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.

When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.

The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

Ahhh...............the Obama appointed hack who spent 10 years working for Patrick Leahy.

Friend of Andrew Weissman, the guy who ran the Mueller Inquisition, and didn't recuse herself from rulings on the Inquisition..........


More shenanigans from this leftist....

More on the leftist judge who approved Mueller's grand jury

One is a federal judge, one is a blogger. You've yet to show an argument worth making.

Yep, one is a hack federal judge who spent 10 years doing the bidding of far left hack Patrick Leahy, then was rewarded by Barry Hussein with this position.

My link exposes more of her far left hackery. I note you can only whine and cry about my source, and have nothing to refute the facts my source lays out.

Typical.

 

[Cosmos]

Ok. So what then? Let's just stipulate the inquiry is valid. (Choking) They want these people to come in and testify, they still have to subpoena them. The WH is not subservient to the Congress. You have to have a subpoena. Then you have to negotiate with the WH over what they'll testify to and any other limits. Or have a court enforce it. Or maybe Fatass can chase them down and have them arrested so he can keep them in the Capitol dungeon until they talk. Those are the options. And even then, none of these WH people is likely to testify to anything we haven't already heard.

Several witnesses did testify under subpoena. Several ignored subpoenas. One, I think, challenged a subpoena, and after delays, the House withdrew it. The McGahn subpoena was issued in April. The ruling, in favor of the House, was issued at the end of November, and immediately appealed by the Administration.

Arguments of House process notwithstanding, the Senate has an Impeachment trial in progress. It's understandable, at this point, that Trump supporters would want the House to spend a year-and-a-half in court first. It certainly beats arguing facts or hearing testimony about those facts.

Well, this isn't the Senate's fault. This crap all should have been settled in the House Judiciary as is customary. Then they only tie-up one House committee instead of the entire Senate. Pelosi and Schiff did this. Why should the Senate be held responsible to clean up their mess?

It's not a question of fault. The Senate is responsible for conducting a fair trial. Some people think that means a rigorous search for truth and some don't.

Trump's legal arguments are bogus. They're not going to win a single case, but they can drag it out for years. I think Obstruction of Congress is a valid charge, and that an honest Senate - aware of its own powers and prerogatives - would stuff it up Trump's ass when they show him the door. (Which won't happen, in this life or the next.)

Well, it looks like Mitch just came out and said they don't have the votes to block witnesses. So this thing is going to drag out. That's ok though. Like I've said, I'll be real interested to hear a good accounting of the Biden crime family corruption that led to this inquiry. I hope the WH defense team agrees with me.

Cool.

Bring on Schifferbrains, swear him in.

Actually, I don't much care about him. Rather see them firmly establish a pattern of corruption with Biden. The door is wide open to it. That could expose a hell of a lot of dirt. And who better to dig up dirt on Biden than a team of Trump's lawyers right on the floor of the US Senate in Prime Time!. It doesn't get any better than that! Karma is a bitch.

 

[joaquinmiller]

There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.

When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.

The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

Ahhh...............the Obama appointed hack who spent 10 years working for Patrick Leahy.

Friend of Andrew Weissman, the guy who ran the Mueller Inquisition, and didn't recuse herself from rulings on the Inquisition..........


More shenanigans from this leftist....

More on the leftist judge who approved Mueller's grand jury

One is a federal judge, one is a blogger. You've yet to show an argument worth making.

Yep, one is a hack federal judge who spent 10 years doing the bidding of far left hack Patrick Leahy, then was rewarded by Barry Hussein with this position.

My link exposes more of her far left hackery. I note you can only whine and cry about my source, and have nothing to refute the facts my source lays out.

Typical.

I neither whined nor cried about your source. I pointed out one, the federal judge, has authority and makes binding rulings, and the other is blogger entertaining wingnuts.

Her ruling stands until a higher court says otherwise. Do you not get that?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Once again the Left blur the transition between reality and the Babylon Bee.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Trump may have killed Soleimani “to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate.”

 

[task0778]

Once again the Left blur the transition between reality and the Babylon Bee.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Trump may have killed Soleimani “to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate.”

I gotta laugh, those guys are absolutely mother fucking crazy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Once again the Left blur the transition between reality and the Babylon Bee.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Trump may have killed Soleimani “to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate.”

Larry think he was throwing him a bone...or intimidating him.

I can't think of a more stupid asshole on TV, except that jerk-off Ed Schultz.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Diane Feinstein: I Don't Know If There's Enough Evidence for Impeachment to Support Anything But an Acquittal

Feinstein says she's a maybe on acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

I was promised impeachment and all I got was this lousy t shirt.

 

[easyt65]

I wonder how much Hillary is taking in for her Presidential election from idiot snowflakes off of this t-shirt.



She owns the DNC ... again.

Gabbard, who is suing her, just got excluded from the next debate.

Warren and Sanders got screwed with the timing of the Articles of Impeachment being finally sent to the Senate

Biden will be sacrificed as an Impeachment witness, especially when the GOP makes his videotaped confession a huge part of the Impeachment trial

Snowflakes' votes mean NOTHING, as was proven in 2016....and despite being thrown under the bus by Hillary after she lost in 2016, the Democrats hate Trump so much and are so desperate they have crawled back to her and made a deal with the devil again....

Hillary will be the DNC 2020 Presidential Nominee...

She and the Democrats, as the GOP pointed out, are trying yo steal 2 elections through this Impeachment...


.

.

 

[hunarcy]

In the Court of Hannity, yeah. Not in a real court.

And she didn't just say it now, she ruled on October 25, 2019, and Trump's spokespeople have been gaslighting you ever since.

You know what's funniest of all in Starr's fountain of lies? His whining about how the House impeachment investigators were not under oath - given ... neither is he.

And that's when he claimed that Trump, in the last months of 2019, rejecting any and all cooperation with the House inquiry, followed the OLC opinion, issued on "January 19, 2020".

I actually, for once, agree with Starr: The defense team should take Starr's advice, and make their case under oath.

Good catch. I don't think many are listening to Trump's lawyers. They're wondering, 'why don't you want Bolton to testify?'

A better question is why didn't the House Managers include Michael Atkinson's testimony in their case. He is the ONLY person they interviewed that they left out...I wonder why.

 

[joaquinmiller]

In the Court of Hannity, yeah. Not in a real court.

And she didn't just say it now, she ruled on October 25, 2019, and Trump's spokespeople have been gaslighting you ever since.

You know what's funniest of all in Starr's fountain of lies? His whining about how the House impeachment investigators were not under oath - given ... neither is he.

And that's when he claimed that Trump, in the last months of 2019, rejecting any and all cooperation with the House inquiry, followed the OLC opinion, issued on "January 19, 2020".

I actually, for once, agree with Starr: The defense team should take Starr's advice, and make their case under oath.

Good catch. I don't think many are listening to Trump's lawyers. They're wondering, 'why don't you want Bolton to testify?'

A better question is why didn't the House Managers include Michael Atkinson's testimony in their case. He is the ONLY person they interviewed that they left out...I wonder why.

1-It's classified.

2-It's categorized as an Intel Briefing, not witness testimony, or a witness deposition.

The fact it's classified is why R's like Ratcliffe can say whatever they want about it without fear of contradiction. Purely as speculation, the briefing would have likely included information as to steps taken to prevent the whistleblower report from being delivered to Congress, as required by law, so I doubt the admin has incentive to see the briefing de-classified.

 

[Ame®icano]

What the Admin wants to keep us from hearing. The Senate will still acquit Trump, but the Senators will have to sit there and listen to it.

Who says the Admin wants to keep us from hearing anything? All they're doing is preserving Executive Privilege. That's something that EVERY President has had and will continue to have long after Trump is gone. The House has attempted to trample all over that.

Bullshit. It's a blanket cover-up.

Various senators have denied a quid pro quo happened and/or denied aid was conditioned on Biden investigations. It's fairly apparent there is evidence to the contrary, and I want senators to have to sit there and listen to it.

"Who says the Admin wants to keep us from hearing anything?" You've got to be kidding.

Bullshit? So do you or do you not agree with the use of Executive Privilege?

In which case? I haven't seen anyone invoke it yet, although Lindsey Graham was encouraging the admin to do it. I have read a couple of crackpot letters from the White House to the House - saying we're not giving you anything. Are you thinking about that?

Actually, yeah. I'll bet even you could figure out that when the President says, "we're not giving you anthing" or "we're not cooperating", he's asserting Privilege, notwithstanding any legal proceedings he has to go through to make it official.

I don't think so. He was implying that he would use "executive privilege" if they issue the subpoena. That still is not obstruction of anything, they should've issue the subpoenas and have him officially assert the privilege, and most likely end up in court.

In short, you can't complain about not complying with subpoena if you didn't issue the subpoena.

 

[Ame®icano]

Bullshit? So do you or do you not agree with the use of Executive Privilege?

In which case? I haven't seen anyone invoke it yet, although Lindsey Graham was encouraging the admin to do it. I have read a couple of crackpot letters from the White House to the House - saying we're not giving you anything. Are you thinking about that?

The subpoenas were invalid. This has been explained to you in great detail. That's why the House Clowns withdrew them and didn't go to court. They new they would lose.

You should be upset with your House Clowns for their clusterfuck.

Go ahead and explain to me, again, in great detail, how the President's lawyers said they weren't legal. When you're done, I'll link, again, the Court decision on the validity of the impeachment inquiry.

You do know lawyers just say crap sometimes, don't you?

You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.

There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.

"there is"...

Where is?

 

[Ame®icano]

Bullshit? So do you or do you not agree with the use of Executive Privilege?

In which case? I haven't seen anyone invoke it yet, although Lindsey Graham was encouraging the admin to do it. I have read a couple of crackpot letters from the White House to the House - saying we're not giving you anything. Are you thinking about that?

Actually, yeah. I'll bet even you could figure out that when the President says, "we're not giving you anthing" or "we're not cooperating", he's asserting Privilege, notwithstanding any legal proceedings he has to go through to make it official.

That's the thing about legal claims. They have to be made legally. "Nancy, you so mean" doesn't do it.

Face it. The House Democrats fucked up bigly. Because they are incompetent and stupid.

Face it. A corrupt President was caught in a textbook impeachable offense, but the cult, or tribalism, or whatever the fuck it is, is so strong that Trump supporters are willing to accept it. Evidence is ignored, witnesses are smeared, and the argument boils down to, 'He's innocent because Democrats!' The moving goalposts are an insult, and if you're on the side calling for less evidence, you're being played.

Which textbook are you using? Unless is called the Constitution of the United States, someone has been lying to you.

 

[joaquinmiller]

In which case? I haven't seen anyone invoke it yet, although Lindsey Graham was encouraging the admin to do it. I have read a couple of crackpot letters from the White House to the House - saying we're not giving you anything. Are you thinking about that?

Actually, yeah. I'll bet even you could figure out that when the President says, "we're not giving you anthing" or "we're not cooperating", he's asserting Privilege, notwithstanding any legal proceedings he has to go through to make it official.

That's the thing about legal claims. They have to be made legally. "Nancy, you so mean" doesn't do it.

Face it. The House Democrats fucked up bigly. Because they are incompetent and stupid.

Face it. A corrupt President was caught in a textbook impeachable offense, but the cult, or tribalism, or whatever the fuck it is, is so strong that Trump supporters are willing to accept it. Evidence is ignored, witnesses are smeared, and the argument boils down to, 'He's innocent because Democrats!' The moving goalposts are an insult, and if you're on the side calling for less evidence, you're being played.

Which textbook are you using? Unless is called the Constitution of the United States, someone has been lying to you.

I'm using the old english definition of bribery - 'something of value in exchange for favor or fealty', which describes what Trump sought to a T.