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

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Slowing a process down that she controlled, WHY?
You don't slow the process down when you have an ironclad case, and evidence shows America is in danger. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE URGENCY AND WE MUST ACT?

 

[beagle9]

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

As a result the Dems have more time in the tank in order to fabricate and create more bullcrap to try and undermine the Trump presidency eh ? Just say what you mean already.

 

[hadit]

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

She was rushing it because it was such an emergency, remember? This is just a political game she's playing.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Mitch hasn’t told you what the rules are.

Dims shoulda called them during the investigation.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Time for that is in the House.

Nazi didn’t make her case, so Dimwingers are wanting a do over.

 

[Nostra]

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.

If they cared about evidence they would have given the Reps their day to call witnesses, per House rules.

They didn’t.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Yep.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Dims blocked the required day for Reps to call witnesses.

 

[Nostra]

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.

And Mitch told her to pound sand.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Bingo!

The entire House procedure was a farce.

 

[Faun]

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.

So?

 

[Faun]

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.

It doesn't matter if they dismiss any charges. There was never any chance the Republican-led Senate was going to convict Impeached Trump no matter what.

 

[Nostra]

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.

So?

She got nothing.

Zip.

Zero.

Nada.

 

[Faun]

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.

So?

She got nothing.

Zip.

Zero.

Nada.

So? She has no power in the Senate. She never has

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So?

What did you not understand that the bitch caved, all her bluster has been for NOTHING, just political theater that will bit the commies in the ass.

.

 

[Faun]

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.

So?

What did you not understand that the bitch caved, all her bluster has been for NOTHING, just political theater that will bit the commies in the ass.

.

So what? Again, she had no control over the Senate. She tried to get something despite that and didn't get it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So?

What did you not understand that the bitch caved, all her bluster has been for NOTHING, just political theater that will bit the commies in the ass.

.

So what? Again, she had no control over the Senate. She tried to get something despite that and didn't get it.

Making this whole freaking thread, MOOT.

//THREAD//

.

 

[Nostra]

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.

So?

She got nothing.

Zip.

Zero.

Nada.

So? She has no power in the Senate. She never has

The delusional drunk thought she did.......so did all her crayon eating followers.

Mitch b-slapped her.

 

[Faun]

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.

So?

What did you not understand that the bitch caved, all her bluster has been for NOTHING, just political theater that will bit the commies in the ass.

.

So what? Again, she had no control over the Senate. She tried to get something despite that and didn't get it.

Making this whole freaking thread, MOOT.

//THREAD//

.

LOL

And yet you're still posting on it.