Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[ThisIsMe]

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

No, I mean pelosi trying to exert power over the senate. This is something she should not be doing. That should be up to the senate democrats, which, they would be summarily overruled, but, just like the repubs had no power in the house hearings, and were denied things they wanted, the dems have no power in the senate hearings, and will have to abide by the rules that the leaders impose.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

No, I mean pelosi trying to exert power over the senate. This is something she should not be doing. That should be up to the senate democrats, which, they would be summarily overruled, but, just like the repubs had no power in the house hearings, and were denied things they wanted, the dems have no power in the senate hearings, and will have to abide by the rules that the leaders impose.

This is something she should not be doing.

Who says? She got everyone talking about it.
What did she really do anyway? Congress was in recess until Monday.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

That was the point of what I posted. The dems dont care about the evidence, unless its damning. If it's not, then its faulty, or incorrect.

In a normal criminal trial, you have a jury of your peers, and there are rules, and they hold procedures to weed out anyone who may have a preconceived notion, or bias either for or against the defendant. In this case, every juror has a bias for or against the defendant.

Again, impossible to have a fair trial.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

No, I mean pelosi trying to exert power over the senate. This is something she should not be doing. That should be up to the senate democrats, which, they would be summarily overruled, but, just like the repubs had no power in the house hearings, and were denied things they wanted, the dems have no power in the senate hearings, and will have to abide by the rules that the leaders impose.

This is something she should not be doing.

Who says? She got everyone talking about it.
What did she really do anyway? Congress was in recess until Monday.

Yes, and she is still holding the articles. People talking about it is irrelevant, and what she is doing is trying to exert power and leverage over another house of government.

Let's put it like this, if McConnell told pelosi "were going to sit on every bill you send us, until you do things in the house the way I want you to do them", youd be good with that?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

That was the point of what I posted. The dems dont care about the evidence, unless its damning. If it's not, then its faulty, or incorrect.

In a normal criminal trial, you have a jury of your peers, and there are rules, and they hold procedures to weed out anyone who may have a preconceived notion, or bias either for or against the defendant. In this case, every juror has a bias for or against the defendant.

Again, impossible to have a fair trial.

The Dems are the prosecutors, dope. They impeached, (indicted) the president.

The Dems seem to be the only ones who care about the evidence and are seeking to hear more about how this all went down.

You are very biased and short sighted in your analysis.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

No, I mean pelosi trying to exert power over the senate. This is something she should not be doing. That should be up to the senate democrats, which, they would be summarily overruled, but, just like the repubs had no power in the house hearings, and were denied things they wanted, the dems have no power in the senate hearings, and will have to abide by the rules that the leaders impose.

This is something she should not be doing.

Who says? She got everyone talking about it.
What did she really do anyway? Congress was in recess until Monday.

Yes, and she is still holding the articles. People talking about it is irrelevant, and what she is doing is trying to exert power and leverage over another house of government.

Let's put it like this, if McConnell told pelosi "were going to sit on every bill you send us, until you do things in the house the way I want you to do them", youd be good with that?

Hmm...Imagine if McConnell sat on a SCOTUS nominee for 230+ days.

 

[hadit]

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

The democrats, obviously. The House didn't do its job, and it's not the Senate's responsibility to make up for it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

The democrats, obviously. The House didn't do its job, and it's not the Senate's responsibility to make up for it.

It's the Senate's job to hold a trial. There is at least one witness who just volunteered to testify. Why wouldn't those who haven't made up their minds want to hear from them?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

That was the point of what I posted. The dems dont care about the evidence, unless its damning. If it's not, then its faulty, or incorrect.

In a normal criminal trial, you have a jury of your peers, and there are rules, and they hold procedures to weed out anyone who may have a preconceived notion, or bias either for or against the defendant. In this case, every juror has a bias for or against the defendant.

Again, impossible to have a fair trial.

The Dems are the prosecutors, dope. They impeached, (indicted) the president.

The Dems seem to be the only ones who care about the evidence and are seeking to hear more about how this all went down.

You are very biased and short sighted in your analysis.

Well, the "dems" are not the prosecutors. The house will assign house managers, who will be Democrats, to be the prosecutor's during the trial, but only those people will have influence on the trial.

Pelosi is not one of these managers, but she is trying to use the power of the house to influence the senate.

The dems are not interested in evidence. They routinely quashed then repubs in the house hearings, denied them witnesses and denied then a day to hold their own hearing, which is customary.

And no, the repubs were not allowed to call their own witnesses, they had to choose from the witnesses that the dems gave them to choose from.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The difference is, the senate votes on the witnesses in the trial. In this case, pelosi, a member of the house, is trying to get witnesses in the senate.

You mean trying to get relevant testimony?
Why is that nefarious to you?

No, I mean pelosi trying to exert power over the senate. This is something she should not be doing. That should be up to the senate democrats, which, they would be summarily overruled, but, just like the repubs had no power in the house hearings, and were denied things they wanted, the dems have no power in the senate hearings, and will have to abide by the rules that the leaders impose.

This is something she should not be doing.

Who says? She got everyone talking about it.
What did she really do anyway? Congress was in recess until Monday.

Yes, and she is still holding the articles. People talking about it is irrelevant, and what she is doing is trying to exert power and leverage over another house of government.

Let's put it like this, if McConnell told pelosi "were going to sit on every bill you send us, until you do things in the house the way I want you to do them", youd be good with that?

Hmm...Imagine if McConnell sat on a SCOTUS nominee for 230+ days.

Sure did, but never told the house, i want you conduct your business the way I say. He never tried to reach into the house and use the senate to leverage house proceedings.

 

[hadit]

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

That was the point of what I posted. The dems dont care about the evidence, unless its damning. If it's not, then its faulty, or incorrect.

In a normal criminal trial, you have a jury of your peers, and there are rules, and they hold procedures to weed out anyone who may have a preconceived notion, or bias either for or against the defendant. In this case, every juror has a bias for or against the defendant.

Again, impossible to have a fair trial.

The Dems are the prosecutors, dope. They impeached, (indicted) the president.

The Dems seem to be the only ones who care about the evidence and are seeking to hear more about how this all went down.

You are very biased and short sighted in your analysis.

The House had its opportunity to get all the evidence, but apparently didn't. Now they want the Senate too make up for that.

 

[hadit]

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

The democrats, obviously. The House didn't do its job, and it's not the Senate's responsibility to make up for it.

It's the Senate's job to hold a trial. There is at least one witness who just volunteered to testify. Why wouldn't those who haven't made up their minds want to hear from them?

There are maybe five who haven't made up their minds already. Getting more testimony would change nothing because if it's exculpatory the democrats will simply refuse to believe it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

The fact that there is no impartiality. Pretty much all of the senate democrats, just like all of the house democrats, have already made up their mind to vote for removal.

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

The democrats, obviously. The House didn't do its job, and it's not the Senate's responsibility to make up for it.

It's the Senate's job to hold a trial. There is at least one witness who just volunteered to testify. Why wouldn't those who haven't made up their minds want to hear from them?

None of them havent made up their minds. That's what I've been trying to say.

Do you really believe anyone in the Senate is going to go into this trial with the "I have an open mind, and I'm going to sit here and listen to all of the testimony and evidence, and when that is done, I will deliberate, and contemplate, and then come up with a completely impartial and unbiased vote" kind of mindset? Not going to happen.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And conversely?

It's the Dems asking for more testimony. More information from the key players.
It's the repubs rejecting that idea.
Who seems to have made up their minds?

Both sides have. It's why this while thing cannot be trusted. You have a division and you have both sides with their minds made up. As I've said, impartiality is impossible.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

This whole thing was a farce from the beginning. From the moment the dems vowed to impeach him before he was elected, though the moment where McConnell and Graham said they would not convict him.

The witnesses are irrelevant. If the witnesses provided damning evidence against trump, they'd say "see, we told you, he is guilty". If the witnesses were exculpatory, the dems would say "we don't believe them, and we have all these other people who have said the opposite, so we should disregard their testimony".

That's called a trial, dope. The House provides the prosecutors. Evidence leads where it leads. Republicans just don't like where they know it will lead.

That was the point of what I posted. The dems dont care about the evidence, unless its damning. If it's not, then its faulty, or incorrect.

In a normal criminal trial, you have a jury of your peers, and there are rules, and they hold procedures to weed out anyone who may have a preconceived notion, or bias either for or against the defendant. In this case, every juror has a bias for or against the defendant.

Again, impossible to have a fair trial.

The Dems are the prosecutors, dope. They impeached, (indicted) the president.

The Dems seem to be the only ones who care about the evidence and are seeking to hear more about how this all went down.

You are very biased and short sighted in your analysis.

Well, the "dems" are not the prosecutors. The house will assign house managers, who will be Democrats, to be the prosecutor's during the trial, but only those people will have influence on the trial.

Pelosi is not one of these managers, but she is trying to use the power of the house to influence the senate.

The dems are not interested in evidence. They routinely quashed then repubs in the house hearings, denied them witnesses and denied then a day to hold their own hearing, which is customary.

And no, the repubs were not allowed to call their own witnesses, they had to choose from the witnesses that the dems gave them to choose from.

Well, the "dems" are not the prosecutors. The house will assign house managers, who will be Democrats, to be the prosecutor's during the trial, but only those people will have influence on the trial.

So....the dems aren't the prosecutors. The dems are.
Simply retarded..

The dems are not interested in evidence.

Says the guy defending those trying to shut down efforts for more evidence and crying about how unfair it is that the dems are attempting to create leverage in order to hear from more witnesses. Attempting get more evidence from those closest to the president.

Truly retarded.