Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
If democrats did not have enough evidence you should not have voted to impeachIt's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
If democrats did not have enough evidence you should not have voted to impeachIt's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
dont blame trump and mcconnell for your incompetence
I see you cant answer my point so you have to project your crying onto meIf democrats did not have enough evidence you should not have voted to impeachIt's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
dont blame trump and mcconnell for your incompetence
Quit whining you big baby.
I see you cant answer my point so you have to project your crying onto meIf democrats did not have enough evidence you should not have voted to impeachIt's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
dont blame trump and mcconnell for your incompetence
Quit whining you big baby.
The senate has already said they have no intention of fairly evaluating the evidence. The jury is directly coordinating with the White House. No need to continue down a path with a corrupt Senate court.
Democrat witnesses gave already testified in the House investigationI see you cant answer my point so you have to project your crying onto meIf democrats did not have enough evidence you should not have voted to impeachIt's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
dont blame trump and mcconnell for your incompetence
Quit whining you big baby.
Your point is absurd. When have you ever seen a trial without witnesses?
You get the idea. I'm sure there must be some mechanism to deal with sufficient abuse of power by a Speaker to warrant removal from her position.And won't that be a howl.
Months, YEARS of work by the democrats, thrown out in seconds like a bad burrito breakfast.
What makes you think it will be turned over to the Senate any time soon?
If Nasty Pelousy does not turn the Articles over soon, the Senate can just ignore them. Nasty would be violating the Constitution. She does not have the power to try impeachments or prevent the Senate from doing so.
Wouldn't Nancy's refusal to turn over the impeachment case to the Senate now that it is completed or hold onto it long enough in an effort to interfere with senators running for election constitute OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? Seems you can be impeached for that. Something for Mitch to consider.
You cannot impeach the Speaker of the House. Read your Constitution please!
Always amuses me how lawmakers have a strict crime and punishment for everything under the sun except for their OWN malfeasance.
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Hillary was under oath for 10 hours....did you miss it??I would love to see obama & hillary placed under oath!
But what it's looking like is there will be a motion to dismiss (for lack of evidence) in the first 30 seconds...if it gets 51 votes (which it will) it's over.
Done in 10 minutes.
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.How can the prosecution or defense present their cases without witnesses?
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
It's the prosecution's duty to present a prima facia case before impeachment.
They couldn't.
There is currently not a single witness or piece of evidence challenging the transcript that exonerates Trump.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
When the jury declares the defendant innocent before the trial begins, that is a sham.
No. It;s the prosecution's duty to present their case at trial. I wonder if John Roberts will be willing to preside over an obviously unfair trial, as McConnell proposes. If he does, he will have thrown away any integrity he might have had.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
When the jury declares the defendant innocent before the trial begins, that is a sham.
Do you mean exactly like the Democrats did on January 20, 2017?
You have a serious problem with projection.
Except the rules are determined by the Senate. If Roberts doesn't like something and rules against it, a simple majority vote overrules him!
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
When the jury declares the defendant innocent before the trial begins, that is a sham.
Do you mean exactly like the Democrats did on January 20, 2017?
You have a serious problem with projection.
Link to 01-20-2017 court case?
And that is why I wonder if Roberts has enough integrity to refuse to take part in such a sham trial. Impartial justice is the foundation of our justice system. Anything less is unethical and unacceptable. We have a right to demand that the chief justice of the SC abstains from such. If he participates under those circumstances, he declares Trump to be a dictator, and Roberts is his subject.
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
When the jury declares the defendant innocent before the trial begins, that is a sham.
Do you mean exactly like the Democrats did on January 20, 2017?
You have a serious problem with projection.
Link to 01-20-2017 court case?
Dumbass! Dems wanted him impeached day one!
If you don't know that you are too stupid to carry on a conversation.
Catch a clue!
Sham? Unlike the Dems, the Senate Republicans would be following the rules.
When the jury declares the defendant innocent before the trial begins, that is a sham.
Do you mean exactly like the Democrats did on January 20, 2017?
You have a serious problem with projection.
Link to 01-20-2017 court case?
Dumbass! Dems wanted him impeached day one!
If you don't know that you are too stupid to carry on a conversation.
Catch a clue!
You think the fact that people despise that orange turd is justification for his behavior? That's nuts. People didn't like Jeffrey Dahmer either, but that didn't make his actions acceptable.
