Chief Justice Roberts admonishes both sides at Senate impeachment trial, after marathon session.....

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

This is a sham trial. Everyone knows it. Political theater.

Irrelevant.

"ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL MEN TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Most of which said they heard from this guy who heard from this other guy who didn't actually hear anything but claims it must be true since everybody said so that...…...

and the rest said that if what the guy who heard from the other guy who heard from this other guy who didn't actually hear anything is telling the truth, then...….

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

This is a sham trial. Everyone knows it. Political theater.

Irrelevant.

"ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL MEN TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Of course you don't.

Which is why they must use terms like "Orange Man Bad". Keeping it simple

Let me try to explain it for you.....
Complaining is not what the Founding Fathers suggested as a response to tyranny.
You will agree we are facing a form of tyranny, won't you?

 

[Care4all]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

 

[Borillar]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The democrat managers all lied. Intentionally, all day, and all night. So what? The trial was a foregone conclusion from the outset.

no the dems didn't lie, but the republicans sure did. Yes its a waste of time, tramp has taken free will away from the republicans.

Free will has never been a big part of party politics.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Of course you don't.

Which is why they must use terms like "Orange Man Bad". Keeping it simple

Okay, so how is this relevant? No idea what you're on about.

Complaining is not what the Founding Fathers suggested as a response to tyranny.

It's not a complaint. I know this will be a sham trial. We were told as much by the Speaker of the Senate.

You will agree we are facing a form of tyranny, won't you?

As of right now? No, not really. There are those in this country that feel perpetually outraged and feel tyranny is around every corner. I am not one of those people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

WTF does McConnell have to do with your "overwhelming" and "incontrovertible" evidence??? Where the Stalinist democrats outright lying about the strength of their case?

 

[Ken Mac]

The admonishment was directed at Nadler, IMO. You don't go into the senate and imply directly that they are complicit in a cover up if they don't allow more evidence. That is total bullshit. Anyone that can't see that is a liberal hack. The Whitehouse counsel should have pointed it out and shut up.

 

[hadit]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

IOW, the House wants the Senate to do their job for them, because they failed to get all the testimony they think they want.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The admonishment was directed at Nadler, IMO. You don't go into the senate and imply directly that they are complicit in a cover up if they don't allow more evidence. That is total bullshit. Anyone that can't see that is a liberal hack. The Whitehouse counsel should have pointed it out and shut up.

The Republicans should have told Roberts to shove it! Trump needs to replace him ASAP

 

[The Original Tree]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The democrat managers all lied. Intentionally, all day, and all night. So what? The trial was a foregone conclusion from the outset.

no the dems didn't lie, but the republicans sure did. Yes its a waste of time, tramp has taken free will away from the republicans.

The Senate Voted Unanimously 100-0 to adopt the rules they are governing the Jury Deliberations by right now, so what is your issue?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is a sham trial. Everyone knows it. Political theater.

Irrelevant.

"ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL MEN TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Of course you don't.

Which is why they must use terms like "Orange Man Bad". Keeping it simple

Let me try to explain it for you.....
Complaining is not what the Founding Fathers suggested as a response to tyranny.
You will agree we are facing a form of tyranny, won't you?

The Stalinist machinations of house democrats is DEFINITELY tyrannical. They refused Trump due process as they trotted out only those sharing your degree of TDS, most of whom had no direct evidence whatsoever, and then used this in their ongoing plots to depose the duly elected president.

 

[jwoodie]

A sham impeachment begets a quick dismissal.

Unless the Senate actually votes to acquit, couldn't these articles be resubmitted at a later date?

If the Articles are dismissed with prejudice, they cannot be resubmitted.
Difference between dismissed with or without prejudice
In the formal legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever.

I don't think the Senate (or Chief Justice) has the power to dismiss with prejudice, since this would infringe on the House's constitutional authority to impeach. However, an acquittal could be argued as an affirmative defense against repetition of the same articles of impeachment.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

As of right now? No, not really. There are those in this country that feel perpetually outraged and feel tyranny is around every corner. I am not one of those people.

Oh for God's sake.
Stay asleep.

If the Kavanaugh debacle, the Russian collusion hoax, the pissing on whores accusations, the Ukraine plot and all the laws popping up that go directly against the Constitution....not to mention the actual possibility that Socialism is taking hold in America aren't enough to open your eyes.

There are those in this country who are perpetually asleep and oblivious to the world around them. Wrapped in their delusions and artificial woobies, they "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". As you suggest......there is no attack on our President. There is no attack on the 2nd Amendment. There is no attack on religious freedom. There is no attack on law and order.

Yeah, right....all is good....nothing to see here.

I guess every day the Right Wing talk show hosts are just making shit up. None of it is real, huh Dumbleweed ?
Why do I even waste my time?

What on Earth it will take for some of these people to finally wake up is beyond me.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

....erupts into shouting match!!!!

A marathon first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight early Wednesday morning, as Trump's legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. -- in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after each of Schumer's previous attempted alterations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's rules were rejected by a united Republican contingent by a vote of 53-47. The eighth amendment, issued as the clock struck midnight, was to issue a subpoena for former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has reportedly described Trump's conduct as akin to a "drug deal."

Nader, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a "treacherous vote" and a "cover-up" for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena, claiming that "only guilty people try to hide evidence."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

------------

All the judge has to do is rule that the prosecutions case is baseless, without merit or any legitimate charge, unconstitutional on its face and run the 2 articles of impeachment through a shredder on national TV. But Roberts cant tell the difference between a tax and a fee so I seriously doubt he could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

 

[Lesh]

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

And leaves a crapload of witnesses...who will not be allowed to testify

 

[hadit]

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

And leaves a crapload of witnesses...who will not be allowed to testify

Why should they? We've already heard from them, because the House did such a thorough job getting testimony, right?

 

[Care4all]

Pat Cipollone lied, intentionally I infer.

So no witnesses or documents, he is guilty as crap. No defense of tramp. Nothing. Might as well call is an end right now, I would not waste my time with the republicans.

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

huh? in a criminal court, material 2nd hand witnesses can testify! you can even convict in a criminal court on only circumstantial evidence!

 

[Oldstyle]

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

And leaves a crapload of witnesses...who will not be allowed to testify

"Crapload" pretty much sums them up...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The House presented no witnesses and no evidence for their 2 non criminal Articles.

But loopy Iran Nan is still giddy that the Impeachment is forever! Here's a pen!

There were at least 10 witnesses in the house.

Why would they have to testify all over again to the Senate? We already have their testimony, so unless you want the Senate Republicans to tear them apart, why can't their testimony just be reviewed?

Truth be told, you don't want that. You think somebody is hiding something that you think would be exposed by the Senate doing the House's job for them. The reality is, though, that if they allowed testimony, the Republicans would have a free hand to hammer home certain facts, like none of them testified that Trump demanded a QPQ.

Who is being asked to testify, that did testify in the House????

The others who did testify in the house, their tapes can be viewed IF McCOnnell allows evidence to be submitted...

BUT, the Senators in a normal impeachment trial can call in house witnesses to submit questions to, if the Senators choose to do so, to fill in gaps the Senators may feel needs closing after viewing their testimony. So far, that is not being allowed either. This was done in private I believe, in the Clinton trial, but that could have been because the subject was about sex/BJs???

None of the witnesses in the house can further testify as to second, third or fourth hand hearsay. None of the witnesses in the house can testify as to their opinion.

That pretty much cuts out 34 witnesses.

huh? in a criminal court, material 2nd hand witnesses can testify! you can even convict in a criminal court on only circumstantial evidence!

Awesome!

So how is Mitch stopping your side from presenting this overwhelming, airtight, incontrovertible evidence?