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.
There is more than enough precedent to follow.Subpoenas must be valid. They were challenged as being invalid due to the fact Nazi Pelousy didn't hold the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings prior to them being issued.You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.
The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.
That lie won't fly. Get a new one.
The Executive Branch has no standing in the process the House uses to initiate impeachment proceeding and the argument lacks merit. Witnesses can choose to plead the 5th and the Executive can claim privileged over specific answers and documents.
You really are thick.
There is no such requirement in the Constitution regarding impeachment.
There is more than enough precedent to follow. Nance used the Judicial committee because they had very few rules for subpoenas. The oversight committee is the proper committee for an impeachment inquiry. They have "OVERSIGHT" of the executive branch. That is their sole job. Why don't you go out and do some more reading. Nancy subverted previous precedent and used the wrong committee because she didn't want to deal with courts and hurry the process along. WTFU.
The precedent use to be the full House had to vote to authorize any committee, including an impeachment inquiry, to have subpoena power. That precedent was changed in 2015, by Republicans wanting to fast track the continuing investigations into Obama. There is no specific committee that the Constitution delegate the Impeachment authority to. The Constitution gives the House the Sole Power or Impeachment.
LOL... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck."Not guilty"?Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
INNOCENT!
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Run Forestttttt
You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.
It shows it's a legal construct.presumption of innocence... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck."Not guilty"?Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
INNOCENT!
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.
LOLLOL... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck."Not guilty"?
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
INNOCENT!
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Run Forestttttt
You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.
(smile) I used it to force your hand kid. You simply aren't up to yhis.
Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.
That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.
YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.
OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses
No court ruled they were valid, Fuckwit.LOLOLHow does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?LOLThe didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.
The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.
Oops!
I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....
Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.
Hint: It doesn't.
They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.
13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.No witnesses were called, dumbfuck. First time in U.S. history.The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.
That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.
YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.
OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
That lie won't fly. Get a new one.
It shows it's a legal construct.presumption of innocence... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck."Not guilty"?
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
INNOCENT!
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.
Your meltdown if fucking hilarious.Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.
That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.
YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.
OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.
They withdrew their subpoena on Bolten, also.They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.Please cite the court case Trump filed to fight the subpoenas issued during the House inquiry...Eastlan v. United States Servicemen's Fund
Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses.
Faun, Please keep up. My point was that Trump's counsel was challenging the validity. It is up to the court to decide. Somewhere in that document (which I've read) the full committee has to sign off on the subpoenas and only the three chairpersons signed off on it. That makes it invalid. The dems needed to challenge it and the didn't cuz they wanted to hurry up and get him out before the election. After wouldn't do them any good. Don't be fooled by the BS.
The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.
Oops!
LOLLOL... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Run Forestttttt
You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.
(smile) I used it to force your hand kid. You simply aren't up to yhis.
Sure, gump.
So you are back to "you are guilty until you prove you are innocent" in impeachment trials.It shows it's a legal construct.presumption of innocence... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck."Not guilty"?
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
INNOCENT!
"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."
Prove this little man
Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.
They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.
OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.
I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.
Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.
Thanks for confirming that you're a douchebag.O.J. Simpson also approved YOUR message.What is that supposed to mean, that anyone who is acquitted is actually guilty?O.J. Simpson approves your message.Suck it, Dimwingers. Your clusterfuck has blown up in your faces.
Now it's over, and you are losers.
Do you understand how much of a douchebag you are?
The Supreme Court had already done that years ago, dumbfuck. Try and keep up, will ya?No court ruled they were valid, Fuckwit.LOLOLHow does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?LOLThe didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.
I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....
Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.
Hint: It doesn't.
They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.
You lost, Loser. Deal with it.
You do know that Sharrod Brown is a democrat, right? Hell, Schiff may as well of said that....oh wait.......When it comes right down to it, the republicans in the senate are a bunch of pussies.
Sen. Sherrod Brown: In private, Republicans admit they acquitted Trump out of fear
And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.No witnesses were called, dumbfuck. First time in U.S. history.The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.
OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
That lie won't fly. Get a new one.
You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.
That lie won't fly. Get a new one.
13 witnesses testified, liar.They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.
I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.
Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.
This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.
No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses
Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.
