Should the Senate trial include new information and testimony?

[ThisIsMe]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

Why, dufus? Did you think Democrats were the primary ones that would obstruct new witnesses to say what went on and why Trump did and why, noting why is nowhere near as important as what. Everyone knows he is guilty of the charges, just at everyone knows he will be acquitted. He is justifiably Impeached. This show trial, at this point is about incidental damages incurred by the parties after the fact. Relax. Enjoy the show. Root for your side. Everybody that matters will come through this alive.

Well,actually, they "why" is of the most importance.

Trump holding aid is not illegal nor against the rules. Remember, biden did the same thing.

The "why" is important because without it, what trump did is exactly what biden did.

I think the intent needs to be found. Right now, nobody can prove intent.

 

[WEATHER53]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

It's all evidence about the same situation, though. It's not like suddenly investigating a blow job instead of a real estate deal. We should get all the relevant evidence presented. What are you worried about? You folks have already decided Trump is innocent anyway, and his political junkies are falling in line. So what would it hurt to have as much information as possible in the record?

Someday, historians are going to look back and be amazed at what a crooked bunch of greedy bastards the Republicans chose to be.

And you have decided he was guilty. Right moron?

Of course he's guilty.

Of what?

 

[colfax_m]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

There’s no rule making it a requirement.

But to have a trial without witnesses would be unprecedented.

 

[The Original Tree]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

The Trial is over. That takes place in The House. These are jury deliberations and The House already Gaveled The Case and delivered it to the jury.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The reason Nancy delayed the trial was to give Schiff time to line up another whistleblower (Parnas). You can bet your ass they're lining up more so they can parade them out systematically as if they just happened to come forward at exactly the right time. The American people will see through this production as well.

New witnesses for the Democratic case? Possibly. The only real question, since the Republicans will acquit anyway, is to what lengths they will go, to break their new oaths of impartiality, before the Supreme Court Justice and the country to silence any testimony, and what effect it will have on the electorate by election day.

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

Why, dufus? Did you think Democrats were the primary ones that would obstruct new witnesses to say what went on and why Trump did and why, noting why is nowhere near as important as what. Everyone knows he is guilty of the charges, just at everyone knows he will be acquitted. He is justifiably Impeached. This show trial, at this point is about incidental damages incurred by the parties after the fact. Relax. Enjoy the show. Root for your side. Everybody that matters will come through this alive.

So you are bitching about Republicans swearing to impartiality while not expecting the asslicking democrats to be the same.? I rest my case moron.

I'm pretty sure I saw them on TV signing their oaths also. I notice you did not say the fix wasn't in and acquittal wasn't assured by Mitch before the Senate trial started. I am glad the ceremony wasn't outside or Mitch might have needed a ground rod 4 feet deep, attached with a log chain up is ass to survive.

How is republicans saying he will vote to acquit trump any more wrong than dems saying they will vote to remove.

The only difference between the two is that a couple of repubs have voiced their intentions and the dems have not, but you have to know that probably all of those dems in the senate have made up their minds already.

 

[The Original Tree]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

There’s no rule making it a requirement.

But to have a trial without witnesses would be unprecedented.

It's not a trial. The Trial is over.

These are Jury Deliberations.

 

[WEATHER53]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

There’s no rule making it a requirement.

But to have a trial without witnesses would be unprecedented.

There has been a trial, now we are at the verdict segment

 

[easyt65]

The House's job was to try the case. The Senate's job is to hear the House's case. The House is now admitting they failed to prove their case, presenting no crime, no evidence, and no witnesses. (Perhaps they should have taken more time rather than rushed to Impeach.)

If witnesses are to be called, the list needs to start with Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, etc...

 

[colfax_m]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

There’s no rule making it a requirement.

But to have a trial without witnesses would be unprecedented.

There has been a trial, now we are at the verdict segment

There has not been a trial. The trial is starting in the next few days. That’s what all the pomp and circumstance was yesterday in the Senate. The very first step in starting the trial.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Simple answer, no. The scum demoncraps had they're chance.

 

[toobfreak]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

Why not? That happens in real trials all the time.

This isn't a court of law. That'd what you clowns kept saying when Dimwingers were using Nazi tactics and ignoring House rules during impeachment.

Now you want to act like this is a regular court.

I kept reading here over and over last month that Impeachment was a political process. Now that the Senate is charged with trying their case, they are whining politics might be involved? Democrats have more to be nervous about than the Republicans here. Get ready for the political, and legal, show of a lifetime. I plan on watching every minute of this.

 

[The Original Tree]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Don’t think so and is it required or an option?

If it was required then no one would be debating this.

There’s no rule making it a requirement.

But to have a trial without witnesses would be unprecedented.

There has been a trial, now we are at the verdict segment

There has not been a trial. The trial is starting in the next few days. That’s what all the pomp and circumstance was yesterday in the Senate. The very first step in starting the trial.

The Senate Proceedings are not a Trial. They are Jury Deliberations. The House conducted The Trial, and submitted the "counts" for the Jury to consider in Deliberations.

Stop Lying.

 

[Nostra]

I thought House did the witnesses and testimony and Senate did the deciding??
I guess libbies want that altered to fit their feelings of the moment?
Dems want Trump ousted No Matter What The Evidence, or in this case lack of it, shows. Feelings and not fact driven
Unlike you libs if there can be an audio or written produced by someone or something other than the nebulous Lev where Trump states “I want dirt on Biden or you get no money from USA” then I would think he violated his position solely for personal gain and should be impeached. Liberals and Dems would NEVER have such a reciprocal stance.

You’re incorrect. Every impeachment trial in the Senate has included witnesses.

Clinton's had 3, all behind closed doors with the Dimwingers releasing only the excerpts they wanted.

You good with that this time?

 

[rightwinger]

Why wouldn’t it hear new evidence?

A criminal jury isn’t limited to what a Grand Jury heard

 

[colfax_m]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

Why not? That happens in real trials all the time.

This isn't a court of law. That'd what you clowns kept saying when Dimwingers were using Nazi tactics and ignoring House rules during impeachment.

Now you want to act like this is a regular court.

I kept reading here over and over last month that Impeachment was a political process. Now that the Senate is charged with trying their case, they are whining politics might be involved? Democrats have more to be nervous about than the Republicans here. Get ready for the political, and legal, show of a lifetime. I plan on watching every minute of this.


View attachment 300916

The Senators just swore an oath yesterday to be impartial. Do you think that’s what Mitch is doing?

 

[The Original Tree]

Why wouldn’t it hear new evidence?

A criminal jury isn’t limited to what a Grand Jury heard

The Trial is over, and there is No New Evidence. Unless you call an Ankle Bracelet that a forefinger is wearing New Evidence?

Why do you foreign assholes not understand Due Process? The Case was gaveled. These are jury deliberations.

 

[The Original Tree]

The House impeached President Trump a month ago, based on the evidence they had at the time. They could have subpoenaed certain people to testify and received certain documents, but elected not to do so because the President was deemed to be a threat to our democracy and a Constitutional Crisis was at hand and our free and fair elections were at risk. Okay fine, but there's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and that should apply to everyone including Trump.

This week it's Lev Parnas, next week it's gonna be someone else. Trump said this, did that and I have a napkin with writing on it to prove it's true. How long could this stuff go on? It's the Kavanaugh hearing all over again, disgraceful accusations and allegations surfacing one after another and all of them total bullshit. Anybody here want to wager on whether the Dems wouldn't do that again? These guys are DESPERATE; they'll do ANYTHING to get Trump removed from office, cuz frankly I think they know that if they don't he's going to get re-elected for the simple reason that their candidates all suck and he's doing a damn fine job. Failing that, they'll delay this trial as long as possible, hoping for a miracle and if possible try to make the most vulnerable Repub Senators who are up for re-election this time look as bad as possible so they can flip those seats.

The House Dems have already said that they could and would impeach Trump a 2nd time if they find enough new evidence to support that action (in their minds). Fine - it's in their Constitutional rights to do that and wouldn't surprise me at all, but in view of that fact then why should the Senate not limit their deliberations to the current Articles and current information presented by the House prosecutors next week? It seems to me that Trump's Constitutional rights would be violated by an unending stream of new witnesses and documents, plus the Senate can't go on about it's business until the trial is over.

And once again Bernie Sanders is getting screwed, as is Warren cuz they can't be out campaigning but Biden can. Except maybe on Sundays when the trial isn't in session. Also, is it possible that by keeping the Senate totally involved with the trial they aren't appointing new feral judges? Another reason why this trial shouldn't be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

Why not? That happens in real trials all the time.

This isn't a court of law. That'd what you clowns kept saying when Dimwingers were using Nazi tactics and ignoring House rules during impeachment.

Now you want to act like this is a regular court.

I kept reading here over and over last month that Impeachment was a political process. Now that the Senate is charged with trying their case, they are whining politics might be involved? Democrats have more to be nervous about than the Republicans here. Get ready for the political, and legal, show of a lifetime. I plan on watching every minute of this.


View attachment 300916

The Senators just swore an oath yesterday to be impartial. Do you think that’s what Mitch is doing?

Impartial as to Evidence and Due Process, and with respect to Hearsay which is what The House entire biased case was based on (Hearsay) cannot be submitted as Evidence.

If you want Impartial then you have to recuse all The Dem Senators who ran for president as they have a conflict of interest. Or don't you believe in impartiality?

 

[Nostra]

Why wouldn’t it hear new evidence?

A criminal jury isn’t limited to what a Grand Jury heard

This isn't a court of law, it's political.

 

[WillowTree]

Name one democrat whom ewe will think to be impartial? Dumbass.

Why, dufus? Did you think Democrats were the primary ones that would obstruct new witnesses to say what went on and why Trump did and why, noting why is nowhere near as important as what. Everyone knows he is guilty of the charges, just at everyone knows he will be acquitted. He is justifiably Impeached. This show trial, at this point is about incidental damages incurred by the parties after the fact. Relax. Enjoy the show. Root for your side. Everybody that matters will come through this alive.

So you are bitching about Republicans swearing to impartiality while not expecting the asslicking democrats to be the same.? I rest my case moron.

I'm pretty sure I saw them on TV signing their oaths also. I notice you did not say the fix wasn't in and acquittal wasn't assured by Mitch before the Senate trial started. I am glad the ceremony wasn't outside or Mitch might have needed a ground rod 4 feet deep, attached with a log chain up is ass to survive.

So then name one of the fuckers who will be impartial?

I do not even know the names, much less the character of all 50 of the Senators. I know that at least one of mine will be, and I assured him when we last corresponded, I trusted his judgement to represent the best interests of our state and country. His page and a quarter response, assured me I have been correct to vote for him all these many years. Do you think either of your will be? How has your personal correspondence with yours worked out?

There are 100 Senators!