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

[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?

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.

I would think exculpatory would be good for Trump going into 2020.

We both know that is not how it will go. The Repubs know it too. Hence yours and their resistence.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

The "dems" as a whole are not the prosecutors, only those assigned as managers.

The house hearings were investigative. The house can assign managers for the trial, but the entire house does not get to leverage the senate, especially one person, who is trying to do just that.

I'm not defending them. I think the truth should come out, but we are talking about unprecedented actions here.

The house had their chance to investigate, and hold hearings. They chose to rush through and get the articles of impeachment as quickly as they could. Now that they are done, they are still trying to get more witnesses in an arena that is not their pervue. This is something that should not happen.

What the house should have done is what is supposed to happen when there is an disagreement between the legislative and executive branch. They should have let the courts decide. Schiff and nadler, and pelosi, were in too much of a hurry to get the articles adopted, so they chose not to use the courts. Now that the articles are in hand, and the senate is ready to start the trial, pelosi doesnt want to transfer the articles.

She is trying to use house leverage in the senate to force an issue that should have been decided by the courts.

 

[beagle9]

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.

The "dems" as a whole are not the prosecutors, only those assigned as managers.

The house hearings were investigative. The house can assign managers for the trial, but the entire house does not get to leverage the senate, especially one person, who is trying to do just that.

I'm not defending them. I think the truth should come out, but we are talking about unprecedented actions here.

The house had their chance to investigate, and hold hearings. They chose to rush through and get the articles of impeachment as quickly as they could. Now that they are done, they are still trying to get more witnesses in an arena that is not their pervue. This is something that should not happen.

What the house should have done is what is supposed to happen when there is an disagreement between the legislative and executive branch. They should have let the courts decide. Schiff and nadler, and pelosi, were in too much of a hurry to get the articles adopted, so they chose not to use the courts. Now that the articles are in hand, and the senate is ready to start the trial, pelosi doesnt want to transfer the articles.

She is trying to use house leverage in the senate to force an issue that should have been decided by the courts.

It just proves it was all a political power play with these evil players Pelosi, Shifty, and the Hagler.

 

[FA_Q2]

The comparisons of this to a judicial process are getting rather old and silly.

Impeachment is not a legal process - it is a political one.

 

[Lakhota]

The comparisons of this to a judicial process are getting rather old and silly.

Impeachment is not a legal process - it is a political one.

It's only political in the sense that it's not done by the courts. It's the constitutional process to do what the courts can't do - remove a bad president for abuse of power.

 

[Faun]

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

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.

Well, but in actuality it is. Pelosi is holding the articles trying to get witnesses in the senate. In effect, she is wanting to use the Senate to continue where they left off in the house.

She couldn't get those witnesses in the house hearings, but she sees a way of getting them in the senate by stalling the process.

Bolton is the exception, but the rest of the witnesses she wants are not

What she's saying is she just wants the Senate to publicly announce their rules for this impeachment before she assembles a team of managers.

 

[Faun]

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.

Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate a political rival. That is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. Impeaching him for that is not a farce. Try to imagine what the political future of this country is going to become if incumbent presidents running for re-election, regardless of their political party, are allowed to engage foreign leaders to help them get elected.

 

[Faun]

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.

Well for one, the House plays no role in confirming justices, so there was nothing compelling McConnell to leverage. But he did exercise unchartered Constitutional powers to achieve his aisle's personal agenda, just as Pelosi is doing now.

 

[IM2]

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.

The "dems" as a whole are not the prosecutors, only those assigned as managers.

The house hearings were investigative. The house can assign managers for the trial, but the entire house does not get to leverage the senate, especially one person, who is trying to do just that.

I'm not defending them. I think the truth should come out, but we are talking about unprecedented actions here.

The house had their chance to investigate, and hold hearings. They chose to rush through and get the articles of impeachment as quickly as they could. Now that they are done, they are still trying to get more witnesses in an arena that is not their pervue. This is something that should not happen.

What the house should have done is what is supposed to happen when there is an disagreement between the legislative and executive branch. They should have let the courts decide. Schiff and nadler, and pelosi, were in too much of a hurry to get the articles adopted, so they chose not to use the courts. Now that the articles are in hand, and the senate is ready to start the trial, pelosi doesnt want to transfer the articles.

She is trying to use house leverage in the senate to force an issue that should have been decided by the courts.

trump has refused to let people testify. This important matter continues being ignored by republicans.

 

[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?

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.

I would think exculpatory would be good for Trump going into 2020.

We both know that is not how it will go. The Repubs know it too. Hence yours and their resistence.

The House had the chance and the authority, yet did not call them. Now they want the Senate to do their work for them. Incompetence.

 

[hadit]

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.

The "dems" as a whole are not the prosecutors, only those assigned as managers.

The house hearings were investigative. The house can assign managers for the trial, but the entire house does not get to leverage the senate, especially one person, who is trying to do just that.

I'm not defending them. I think the truth should come out, but we are talking about unprecedented actions here.

The house had their chance to investigate, and hold hearings. They chose to rush through and get the articles of impeachment as quickly as they could. Now that they are done, they are still trying to get more witnesses in an arena that is not their pervue. This is something that should not happen.

What the house should have done is what is supposed to happen when there is an disagreement between the legislative and executive branch. They should have let the courts decide. Schiff and nadler, and pelosi, were in too much of a hurry to get the articles adopted, so they chose not to use the courts. Now that the articles are in hand, and the senate is ready to start the trial, pelosi doesnt want to transfer the articles.

She is trying to use house leverage in the senate to force an issue that should have been decided by the courts.

trump has refused to let people testify. This important matter continues being ignored by republicans.

If he refused the House, why would he agree for the Senate? The House had the chance and didn't take 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?

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.

Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate a political rival. That is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. Impeaching him for that is not a farce. Try to imagine what the political future of this country is going to become if incumbent presidents running for re-election, regardless of their political party, are allowed to engage foreign leaders to help them get elected.

It was a farce because before the president was even sworn in, you had the left calling for impeachment. It's a farce because McConnell has already said he wont convict trump.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

The "dems" as a whole are not the prosecutors, only those assigned as managers.

The house hearings were investigative. The house can assign managers for the trial, but the entire house does not get to leverage the senate, especially one person, who is trying to do just that.

I'm not defending them. I think the truth should come out, but we are talking about unprecedented actions here.

The house had their chance to investigate, and hold hearings. They chose to rush through and get the articles of impeachment as quickly as they could. Now that they are done, they are still trying to get more witnesses in an arena that is not their pervue. This is something that should not happen.

What the house should have done is what is supposed to happen when there is an disagreement between the legislative and executive branch. They should have let the courts decide. Schiff and nadler, and pelosi, were in too much of a hurry to get the articles adopted, so they chose not to use the courts. Now that the articles are in hand, and the senate is ready to start the trial, pelosi doesnt want to transfer the articles.

She is trying to use house leverage in the senate to force an issue that should have been decided by the courts.

trump has refused to let people testify. This important matter continues being ignored by republicans.

Correct, seems like that problem has been a two way street. This furthers the point that all of this is a farce. There is no impartiality on either side.

If the house wanted that testimony, they should have put the issue before the courts. The house did not want to wait for the courts. Getting him impeached was urgent. Now that they have the articles, they dont want to send them. They want to try and use that as leverage against the senate. This is not the way it should be done.

Maybe what pelosi needs to do is withdrawal the articles, then go back to the courts to compel testimony. That would be the proper way to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's only political in the sense that it's not done by the courts. It's the constitutional process to do what the courts can't do - remove a bad president for abuse of power.

Its funny you think there was an abuse of power.
Its even funnier that you think all the Dem senators, much less 20 GOP senators, will vote to remove.

 

[M14 Shooter]

trump has refused to let people testify. This important matter continues being ignored by republicans.

The House had the ability to take the executive branch to court to force compliance with their subpoenas.
They chose not to do so.
Then, they impeached the President for his legal exercise of executive privilege.
This important matter continues to be ignored by Democrats.

 

[Lakhota]

Thank you Speaker Pelosi for slowing the process down. As a result - we now have more information.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

The house said they had an ironclad case when they voted, they should present it to the senate and see if they agree. Don't think the senate will buy it, but hey. give it a shot.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Well, but in actuality it is. Pelosi is holding the articles trying to get witnesses in the senate. In effect, she is wanting to use the Senate to continue where they left off in the house.

She couldn't get those witnesses in the house hearings, but she sees a way of getting them in the senate by stalling the process.

Bolton is the exception, but the rest of the witnesses she wants are not

What she's saying is she just wants the Senate to publicly announce their rules for this impeachment before she assembles a team of managers.

They have, and now nazi palousey will transmit the articles next week, she caved.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Thank you Speaker Pelosi for slowing the process down. As a result - we now have more information.

 

[kyzr]

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?

The house said they had an ironclad case when they voted, they should present it to the senate and see if they agree. Don't think the senate will buy it, but hey. give it a shot.

.

This impeachment trial might be the shortest in history.
1. Most of the "evidence" is 2nd hand which is NOT allowed in the senate. If Roberts disallows 2nd hand evidence Article-1 is dismissed
2. Article-2 was voided by the USSC taking the Trump vs case for tax records, so it is NOT illegal or obstruction for Trump to take the House to court.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
So as the managers present their case, and as the defense shoots it down, and someone calls for a dismissal vote, the trial is over.