Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Auld Phart]

The House Managers have asked, over and over, what has changed in Foreign Aid from 2017, 2018, to 2019.

and their answer is...

Joe Biden began his run for president.


I disagree.

the change?

President Zelensky in 2019
6th President of Ukraine
Incumbent
Assumed office
20 May 2019[1]


A new president in the Ukraine is what happened.

One supposedly less corrupt than his predecessor.

 

[Olde Europe]

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

Yeah, he's playing you for a sucker, when, in fact, you've been right all along.

"Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president?"

"Partisan" means favoring one set of policy objectives over another for ideological reasons. That's not what's going on here, again, as you rightly note. Here we have one faction going along with manifest corruption and an all-out assault on the Constitution, while the other side insists on following the law and preserving Congressional prerogatives.

In the end, the level of chutzpah is even astonishing: The faction meekly and unanimously rallying behind a criminal accuses the other side of partisanship - enabled by the fact that none on their own side can muster the spine, the integrity, and the courage to stand up for the law. That's a real beauty, right there.

 

[beagle9]

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

Yeah, he's playing you for a sucker, when, in fact, you've been right all along.

"Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president?"

"Partisan" means favoring one set of policy objectives over another for ideological reasons. That's not what's going on here, again, as you rightly note. Here we have one faction going along with manifest corruption and an all-out assault on the Constitution, while the other side insists on following the law and preserving Congressional prerogatives.

In the end, the level of chutzpah is even astonishing: The faction meekly and unanimously rallying behind a criminal accuses the other side of partisanship - enabled by the fact that none on their own side can muster the spine, the integrity, and the courage to stand up for the law. That's a real beauty, right there.

The Dems have played the whole country for suckers, and that's a fact jack. It's so obvious that even a blind person can see it. Trump was absolutely right about the corrupt media, and their out of control power when it is turned on American's for nefarious reasons. They (the Dems) have been using reasons that have been brought about by radical wings of the various groups whom want to try and persuade the country to change in a radical way, and if it doesn't agree to just change or go with the few (i.e and not instead go with the flow of the country like it should be if the nation is doing things right), then they figure that they will use government power like Obama was doing, to then force it on the majority in that way, just like Obama was doing.

This nation don't need anymore rogue radicals attempting to use our government to force change into their favor, and to do it against the majority will of the nation. That's been the rub, because all change ain't nessesarily good change, but the Dems just can't accept any rejection of their ideas, and that sets a very dangerous precedent as is proven in this first term of a president for the people, and for all of the people.

Then we have these race baiting, group wooing candidate's on the Democrat side, who are using vile race baiting rehtoric in an attempt to play the country for complete fool's now. The country is awake, and it won't be fooled by the vile tactics anymore, so Dems need to realize that the country is awake, and won't be fooled so easily anymore.

 

[Olde Europe]

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 -- United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”​

That's instructive.

The House demonstrated Trump is a criminal. They demonstrated it so conclusively, further evidence is redundant.

Yet, let's leave the criminal in office. That is a logical conclusion because GOP "representatives" and "senators" stick with the criminal, no matter what.

What needs to be done to arrive at that conclusion is a selective reading of the much revered "founding documents", stripped of Article I powers to investigate and remove a criminal.

Alexander has - to his honor - the integrity to acknowledge the crime. He is also, shamefully, willing to trample over inconvenient parts of the Constitution to keep the vulgar, incompetent Mob Boss - guilty of extortion, bribery, violation of the Impoundment Control Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, in short, guilty of abuse of power - in office. He is also, shamefully, in favor of placing the chief magistrate above the law and above the Constitution by consenting to an emasculation of Congress.

Profile in courage, that one, and what a legacy to create during his last days in Congress.

 

[Cosmos]

There's a coup, alright. The Republicans are conducting by using the Constitution as rolling paper.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

What's the most egregious violation of the Constitution you've seen yet from the GOP?

 

[Cosmos]

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 -- United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”​

That's instructive.

The House demonstrated Trump is a criminal. They demonstrated it so conclusively, further evidence is redundant.

Yet, let's leave the criminal in office. That is a logical conclusion because GOP "representatives" and "senators" stick with the criminal, no matter what.

What needs to be done to arrive at that conclusion is a selective reading of the much revered "founding documents", stripped of Article I powers to investigate and remove a criminal.

Alexander has - to his honor - the integrity to acknowledge the crime. He is also, shamefully, willing to trample over inconvenient parts of the Constitution to keep the vulgar, incompetent Mob Boss - guilty of extortion, bribery, violation of the Impoundment Control Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, in short, guilty of abuse of power - in office. He is also, shamefully, in favor of placing the chief magistrate above the law and above the Constitution by consenting to an emasculation of Congress.

Profile in courage, that one, and what a legacy to create during his last days in Congress.

Well, thank you for the sniveling rat perspective on all this. As if anyone cares about the ravings of a disgruntled America-hating OldeEuroNazi.

Just for your information, the man said, "inappropriate", not "criminal". And I think even that is taking it too far.

 

[jc456]

The Senate makes their rules, not the Supreme Court.

Yep. And I believe McConnell's abuse of the rules are examples of Malfeasance.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

It has become a pattern used by Moscow Mitch and his use of misfeasance in bringing bills passed by the House for debate and a vote, and in not putting forth for an up or down vote to Obama's nomination for the supreme court. It is dishonest and wrong.

a misfeasance is the act of performing a legal action, but in an improper way; Moscow Mitch has no integrity.

List the rules he violated, and exactly how he violated them.

Yes Virginia, there really are stupid questions. Had the author of this ^^^ stupid question read the definitions above, s/he might have understood the post; also, I left out Non feasance which is also in play with Moscow Mitch's behavior, s/he might understand the wrongful doing of Moscow Mitch the presidents b***h.

Look at you you tough guy message boarder! Eewwww I’m spit laughing at you.

Can you say acquittal?

Sure, I've seen other assholes like trump walk away. It happens. He won't be exonerated, and will be known as the third president to be impeached. Furthermore, history will not be kind to him.

with an asterik, partisan impeachment, party over country from the DNC. yes we know.

 

[Nostra]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

 

[Nostra]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

Not so much. Why does the House get to dictate what the Senate does? They got to control the entire impeachment process in the house. Now, The House voted to impeach based on the 17 witnesses testimony. They tried to push it through before the end of the year and Christmas because they kept saying Trump is such a national security threat, they didnt have time to take it to the court, so now they want to bring in new evidence?
The job of the Senate is now to rule on all the perfect evidence the House gathered during their impeachment. They are the ones who set the timeline, if they wanted more witnesses then they should NOT have pushed it through. They have nothing to bitch about except that they like to bitch.

Trump is right not to trust them and there is no need to play their game

You have it wrong. The question is will the Senate renege on it’s constitutional obligation to hold a fair trial or will they allow a trial to go forward with witnesses and hold true to it’s constitutional duty.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Stop lying.

 

[jc456]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The senate has not voted yet and lib anti trumpers are making excuses already

Yup. There is nothing conceivably improper in the Trump campaign’s calling attention to the Bidens’ record of self-dealing – of the likelihood that the former vice president’s son Hunter, and perhaps other Biden family members, profited on Joe Biden’s political influence. There is, moreover, no problem whatsoever with the Trump campaign’s pointing out that

(a) Hunter Biden took a lucrative board position with a corrupt foreign company in a sector (energy) in which he had no experience, facts that powerfully suggest influence peddling; and
(b) Vice President Biden knowingly operated under a blatant conflict-of-interest in playing point-man on Obama administration Ukraine policy — such that he may have been corruptly influenced, and even if he was not, he created the appearance of impropriety that government officials are supposed to avoid. (And Ukraine may not be the only country in connection with which Biden created this unsavory appearance.)​

All of that is fair game. Campaign arguments could properly be made about it, wholly apart from whether the current Ukrainian regime took any investigative action.

Democrats, however, allege that the dispositive fact is that the Ukrainian government — as opposed to, say, the American media — might have opened a corruption investigation at Trump’s behest. What plausible evidence is there that this would have had any real impact on the 2020 election?

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

are they actually saying that trump couldn't use the video of biden admitting quid pro quo if it came down to it? yet orangemanbad commercials will be ok. yeah, fk the left and anyone that stick their fingers in their ass.

 

[JLW]

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

Yeah, he's playing you for a sucker, when, in fact, you've been right all along.

"Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president?"

"Partisan" means favoring one set of policy objectives over another for ideological reasons. That's not what's going on here, again, as you rightly note. Here we have one faction going along with manifest corruption and an all-out assault on the Constitution, while the other side insists on following the law and preserving Congressional prerogatives.

In the end, the level of chutzpah is even astonishing: The faction meekly and unanimously rallying behind a criminal accuses the other side of partisanship - enabled by the fact that none on their own side can muster the spine, the integrity, and the courage to stand up for the law. That's a real beauty, right there.

No, it is not a matter of being a "sucker." There was truth to Wil's statement about partisanship. I should have added it does not make it right, but that is the world we live in.

 

[The Original Tree]

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

Yeah, he's playing you for a sucker, when, in fact, you've been right all along.

"Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president?"

"Partisan" means favoring one set of policy objectives over another for ideological reasons. That's not what's going on here, again, as you rightly note. Here we have one faction going along with manifest corruption and an all-out assault on the Constitution, while the other side insists on following the law and preserving Congressional prerogatives.

In the end, the level of chutzpah is even astonishing: The faction meekly and unanimously rallying behind a criminal accuses the other side of partisanship - enabled by the fact that none on their own side can muster the spine, the integrity, and the courage to stand up for the law. That's a real beauty, right there.

No, it is not a matter of being a "sucker." There was truth to Wil's statement about partisanship. I should have added it does not make it right, but that is the world we live in.

Shame on the ShamDems for bringing us ShamPeachment

 

[JLW]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The House essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

 

[Nostra]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

 

[jc456]

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

Yeah, he's playing you for a sucker, when, in fact, you've been right all along.

"Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president?"

"Partisan" means favoring one set of policy objectives over another for ideological reasons. That's not what's going on here, again, as you rightly note. Here we have one faction going along with manifest corruption and an all-out assault on the Constitution, while the other side insists on following the law and preserving Congressional prerogatives.

In the end, the level of chutzpah is even astonishing: The faction meekly and unanimously rallying behind a criminal accuses the other side of partisanship - enabled by the fact that none on their own side can muster the spine, the integrity, and the courage to stand up for the law. That's a real beauty, right there.

you wouldn't know the rule of law if you moved to the US.

 

[JLW]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

 

[jc456]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

no, you're wrong, it isn't the same, in no other court trial does a jury gain an advantage for the guilt of a defendant. so, it simply shows that politics is politics. and you lost. And don't say fair again, your fingers might fall off or you get hit by lightning.

And the senators who are running for president have absolutely everything to gain. Like having the mother of a killer on trial in the jury and she gets to vote for the death penalty. your stupid is noted as usual.

 

[Cosmos]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Obviously that model isn't quite correct is it. The House proceedings were very much part of the overall trial. The House is not a Grand Jury.

In this case the House portion was incompetently and unfairly run because it wasn't a legitimate inquiry into a crime. It was a political attack.

 

[JLW]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Obviously that model isn't quite correct is it. The House proceedings were very much part of the overall trial. The House is not a Grand Jury.

I did not say it was an exact analogy. House impeaches; Senate tries.

Y'all know what the Constitution is I hope. Here is what the Constitution says.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

***************************************************

What is so hard to comprehend about that simple statement. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

 

[Nostra]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.