Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Ame®icano]

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.

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

I just read the portion of the ruling. Ruling did NOT address the legality of impeachment inquiry, nor ruling was about it.

Having presumed that inquiry was legal, the ruling is about legality of releasing the grand jury information to House, and it was ruled in favor of the House with explanation that "an impeachment inquiry in the House may itself constitute a judicial proceeding", and "House exercises the judicial power of preferring articles of impeachment" and explaining "that the House's “power to investigate pursuant to impeachment has always been understood as a limited judicial power".

Read it yourself, dummy, don't just take NY Times word for it.

 

[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

I just read the portion of the ruling. Ruling did NOT address the legality of impeachment inquiry, nor ruling was about it.

Having presumed that inquiry was legal, the ruling is about legality of releasing the grand jury information to House, and it was ruled in favor of the House with explanation that "an impeachment inquiry in the House may itself constitute a judicial proceeding", and "House exercises the judicial power of preferring articles of impeachment" and explaining "that the House's “power to investigate pursuant to impeachment has always been understood as a limited judicial power".

Read it yourself, dummy, don't just take NY Times word for it.

Read pp 47-51, which directly address the question, and say you still think that.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Nothing was exchanged, and the money was released. Other than that, you are spot on.

No announcement of an investigation was made, the money was released.

 

[joaquinmiller]

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.

Nothing was exchanged, and the money was released. Other than that, you are spot on.

No announcement of an investigation was made, the money was released.

No one says he didn't caught trying.

 

[Cosmos]

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

Yeah. That's what I was getting at. Telling someone you're not going to cooperate via twitter means nothing more than, "You're going to have to issue a subpoena and I'll see you in court".

 

[Nostra]

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.

Nothing was exchanged, and the money was released. Other than that, you are spot on.

No announcement of an investigation was made, the money was released.

No one says he didn't caught trying.

Your story keeps changing.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

I just read the portion of the ruling. Ruling did NOT address the legality of impeachment inquiry, nor ruling was about it.

Having presumed that inquiry was legal, the ruling is about legality of releasing the grand jury information to House, and it was ruled in favor of the House with explanation that "an impeachment inquiry in the House may itself constitute a judicial proceeding", and "House exercises the judicial power of preferring articles of impeachment" and explaining "that the House's “power to investigate pursuant to impeachment has always been understood as a limited judicial power".

Read it yourself, dummy, don't just take NY Times word for it.

Read pp 47-51, which directly address the question, and say you still think that.

I see what you're referring to, but court ruling still contradicts the House rules.

Just because it has been done before (impeachment hearing without House vote for impeachment inquiry), it doesn't mean it was done according to House rules. Problem is that in previous cases nobody challenged it in court and it was accepted as "it's been always done this way", not because its right.

Democrats could have go for full House vote, and if they did, they had votes to pass it and save us of these troubles, especially because Republicans were complaining about procedure all along. Why they haven't done it is beyond reason, maybe to turn attention from something else, or perhaps to rush the impeachment before Barr/Durham investigation ends.

This should've gone to higher court.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Yeah. That's what I was getting at. Telling someone you're not going to cooperate via twitter means nothing more than, "You're going to have to issue a subpoena and I'll see you in court".

It's similar to " If you pass this bill and I'll veto it." There is no veto if House hasn't passed the bill.

If they pass it anyways and president veto it, they have another shot to overrule it with super majority. Veto, and threat to veto, are not obstruction of Congress.

 

[the other mike]

The Dems desperate hail Mary is intercepted by Rudy G.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BOMBSHELLS

TIPPING POINT

DEMS IN A PANIC

Sen. Manchin wants to call Hunter Biden!!!

3 Dems Senators would vote to acquit!!!!!!

Game Over! GAME OVER, MAN!

 

[jc456]

Hehe.

Playing videos of the House Clowns during the Clinton impeachment now. Hypocrites.

every one

 

[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

I just read the portion of the ruling. Ruling did NOT address the legality of impeachment inquiry, nor ruling was about it.

Having presumed that inquiry was legal, the ruling is about legality of releasing the grand jury information to House, and it was ruled in favor of the House with explanation that "an impeachment inquiry in the House may itself constitute a judicial proceeding", and "House exercises the judicial power of preferring articles of impeachment" and explaining "that the House's “power to investigate pursuant to impeachment has always been understood as a limited judicial power".

Read it yourself, dummy, don't just take NY Times word for it.

Read pp 47-51, which directly address the question, and say you still think that.

I see what you're referring to, but court ruling still contradicts the House rules.

Just because it has been done before (impeachment hearing without House vote for impeachment inquiry), it doesn't mean it was done according to House rules. Problem is that in previous cases nobody challenged it in court and it was accepted as "it's been always done this way", not because its right.

Democrats could have go for full House vote, and if they did, they had votes to pass it and save us of these troubles, especially because Republicans were complaining about procedure all along. Why they haven't done it is beyond reason, maybe to turn attention from something else, or perhaps to rush the impeachment before Barr/Durham investigation ends.

This should've gone to higher court.

It is being appealed, but the Court determined the House was involved in a valid impeachment inquiry and cited precedent. The appellate argument is weighing the relevance of the grand jury testimony, not the validity of the impeachment inquiry. FWIW, I think it was a fishing expedition.

 

[jc456]

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.

it's like they all don't know what the powers a president has. I'm just saying. How does their ignorance result in impeachment?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Every time Schiff speaks, my skin crawls. I cannot believe you lefties like him. You don’t, right? I mean, there is no way.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Every time Schiff speaks, my skin crawls. I cannot believe you lefties like him. You don’t, right? I mean, there is no way.

I'd hire him as a lawyer in a heartbeat. He's a smart man.

 

[Ame®icano]

Every time Schiff speaks, my skin crawls. I cannot believe you lefties like him. You don’t, right? I mean, there is no way.

I'd hire him as a lawyer in a heartbeat. He's a smart man.

He's got great imagination, he should write the children books. Without his creepy eyes photos, of course.

 

[ColonelAngus]

These Dem answers are such bullshit

 

[ColonelAngus]

Every time Schiff speaks, my skin crawls. I cannot believe you lefties like him. You don’t, right? I mean, there is no way.

I'd hire him as a lawyer in a heartbeat. He's a smart man.

he would be disbarred if he defended you. I could just lie all the time, too.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Schiff doesn’t know who the Whistleblower is...but I do??

raise your hand if you think Schiff is telling the truth when he says he doesn’t know the whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Schiff argues both sides. Intent is relevant in criminal cases. But a crime isn’t necessary to impeach because it is not a criminal court.

make up your mind Adam!