CNN Anchor Tells Nancy Pelosi That Trump Was Acquitted — She Interrupts, Claims He Wasn’t

[jknowgood]

Let’s see what the voters say about the Republican “acquittal”

Here are another 4 years acquitted president Trump!

 

[Care4all]

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?

That would NEVER be allowed in a trial... prosecutors do NOT stop building their case for the trial, all the way up to the trial and during the trial.... they do not stop and twiddle their thumbs once they filed the indictment.

 

[toobfreak]

it was the President that illegally held back first hand witnesses and direct evidence

**** YOU *****. Who do you think you are talking to, some grade school simpleton? NAME THE STATUTE LAW HE BROKE if it was illegal!!!

NAME THE STATUTE LAW HE BROKE if it was illegal!!!

You see *****, you cannot bullshit me. I'm in the process of reviewing hours of live testimony from the hearings right now to be reported on soon here in the future. THE EXACT CASE LAW was given during the Senate Trial stating right down to the precedent why all of Nancy's subpoenas were illegal, as agreed upon by the DOJ OLC. And that, as agreed upon by legal experts going back to 1819 and used by every president going back to Nixon and ever since, that the president's top advisors CANNOT BE COMPELLED to give congressional testimony because it would undermine their ability and all future advisors in their ability to give their president safe and effective advise on matters of national issues if they had to worry that their advice might later then become part of the public record. That was all explained and documented in great exhaustive detail during the trial which you somehow missed and I will be going back over it at some point in the near future in my own thread.

They claim the House was not allowed to oversea the President or executive branch.... we the people have no right to know any thing they are doing.... the President and admin and Cabinet is above the law.... lawless.

**** OFF, YOU STUPID WENCH. Yes, I know, Maxine Waters like you claimed that "impeachment is whatever they(Congress) says it is, that there is no law," fortunately, the Constitution does not agree with you. We do not have a Parliamentary system, the President DOES NOT serve at the pleasure of the Congress. We have three equal branches of government, and the Congress no more has the absolute power to take away the Executive's powers and privileges which the Law affords him to force him to do anything they want without Due Process, than the Executive has the power to force members of Congress to come to the WH and compel them to answer questions to him.

That is not an opinion, it is the SETTLED LAW as established by the top legal experts over the past +200 years, you DO NOT have a "right" to know anything they are doing, and I DARE YOU TO PRODUCE THE STATUTES which say otherwise.

The House Impeachment was a partisan JOKE designed to effect a predetermined outcome within a predetermined timetable (to railroad the president out of office to remove him from the 2020 ballot), dumped upon the body of the Senate and it was fortunately stopped there, not just for Trump's sake but for all future administrations.

 

[jknowgood]

She has a point.... Clinton was acquitted after a real trial, with witnesses and with evidence submitted, from both sides....

There was no real trial, with evidence and witnesses in Trumps....

I don't think there was ever a criminal, civic or impeachment trial in our entire history of a Nation, that did not permit witness testimony and documented evidence, as was with this SHAM trial......

THAT will forever be the *asterisk next to the Trump Acquittal.....

they should have just allowed them.... he was going to likely be acquitted anyway, on a partisan basis, but at least it would have made the trial appear to be, a trial and not the shameful, blatant, not questionable, the fix is in SCAM that it was....

The House proceedings were a sham, therefore the Republicans had no reason to Ingratiate themselves to pelosi and Shciff just because they claimed Trump was a clear and present danger to the world.
The House voted to impeach Trump knowing that they did not have enough evidence, therefore there is no way their votes were honest and based on facts that were deliberated on. Their votes were solely based on emotion, running deep from the Russian collusion fiasco and based on opinions by federal employees who had bad Feeeeelings about Trump's foreign policy decisions.
House Democrats had every chance to take their time, gather all the witness they needed before they voted, but unfortunately, they must have wanted to go skiing over Christmas break, because they said they didnt have time. And they sure didnt want the Supreme Court to get their hands on anything.

They had enough evidence and witnesses....but they were not allowed to call those witnesses in front of the Senators.

And after the impeachment in the House NEW EVIDENCE and new witnesses came forward with MORE information that was pertinent to the trial, which they also were not allowed to call....

That is simply unheard of, unprecedented, and a total disgrace that senators, sworn to be impartial, and serve justice, find the truth, voted to ignore extremely relevant witnesses and the additional, New, material evidence.

Tell me PRECISELY what was the sham in the house impeachment..... Y'all keep repeating that statement of the House was unfair blah blah blah, that you've been told to say by your handlers, but can not actually point to what was so unfair with the House impeachment?


The house followed ALL of the impeachment rules that were in place.

Mitch said upfront, he would not be impartial, he was not seeking the truth and he would work hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, to acquit him.....

REALLY????

For goodness sake!!

What a total sham, and Embarrassment for our Nation, in front of the whole country and world.

I admit that, you loons making things up about Trump. Your witnesse heard the call, from a friend who heard it from a friend who. Heard it from another. Well one great thing will come from this false impeachment. Four more years of Trump!

 

[Nostra]

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

The Senate accepted 13 witnesses and over 2800 pages of documents.

Get a new lie, that one won’t fly.

 

[iceberg]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?

That would NEVER be allowed in a trial... prosecutors do NOT stop building their case for the trial, all the way up to the trial and during the trial.... they do not stop and twiddle their thumbs once they filed the indictment.

and there you have it.

the ass that never quits shitting.

 

[Nostra]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

You can keep telling that lie forever, it will always be a lie.

 

[jknowgood]

He was also acquitted.

So was OJ

That why Trumps popularity has skyrocketed during the charade?

Sky rocketed? Has he even passed 50%, ever?

His campaign raised millions during the shame impeachment. My liberal friend from Vermont is embarrassed at how y'all are acting. You are turning him conservative. Keep up the good work!

 

[Nostra]

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.

You really are dumb, and a serial liar.

 

[Care4all]

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It wasn't their lacking, it was a Titanium Brick wall of stonewalling by the white house...an abuse of presidential power on an illegal basis of a fabricated right that they called "absolute immunity"...
No one showed up for House questioning, no records were turned over to congress.

The house, had been trying for nearly a year to get Don McGhann to testify on the Mueller Obstruction allegations of the President.

The house had won the case, all the way up the Appeal chain, but now the President is appealing that, to the Supreme Court....if they take the case, it will be a year and a half of stalling, stonewalling, tying it up in the courts...

Justice delayed, is justice denied.....

They didn't even try to get most of what you're demanding (but won't get). Trump said, "Get lost", and they said, "Okay". Along the way, if they could prove their case that Trump really did abuse his power, they would have had a stronger case. As it is, their case was weak, but they forced it through because it was so important to do it fast that they did nothing for a month.

The McGhan case for this absolute immunity claim WAS READY being slow walked through the courts, how many lawsuits do you need? It had been 10 months already with McGhan' s court case....the appeals court, the week after impeachment ruled in favor of Congress, but now it was appealed again to the SC.

The founders did not anticipate such an abuse of power by the President....

That the impeachment power given soley to the House could be nullified by the person they are impeaching through stalling tactics of the accused.

 

[Nostra]

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It was house managers/prosecutors asking for witnesses... Why should a prosecution team be denied any material witness or any material evidence to be presented in trial so the jury can have all the facts?

That would NEVER be allowed in a trial... prosecutors do NOT stop building their case for the trial, all the way up to the trial and during the trial.... they do not stop and twiddle their thumbs once they filed the indictment.

Not a court, stupid. The Constitution lays out the impeachment process. The House didn’t follow the Constitution, the Senate did.

 

[Care4all]

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.

You really are dumb, and a serial liar.

Each impeachment is different.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial had 41 live witnesses.

The Clinton trial had a special prosecutor, Ken Starr doing all of the investigating, all of the witness depositions without Whitehouse lawyers, collected and got all material evidence without obstruction from the President, and turned over the Starr report to the House and Senate.

Barr/DOJ refused a special prosecutor for the Ukraine scandal

 

[jknowgood]

She has a point.... Clinton was acquitted after a real trial, with witnesses and with evidence submitted, from both sides....

There was no real trial, with evidence and witnesses in Trumps....

I don't think there was ever a criminal, civic or impeachment trial in our entire history of a Nation, that did not permit witness testimony and documented evidence, as was with this SHAM trial......

THAT will forever be the *asterisk next to the Trump Acquittal.....

they should have just allowed them.... he was going to likely be acquitted anyway, on a partisan basis, but at least it would have made the trial appear to be, a trial and not the shameful, blatant, not questionable, the fix is in SCAM that it was....

Factually speaking, Trump was acquitted. Pelosi is now lying about the outcome. “At this point, what difference does it make?”

She's giving her insight and opinion... don't y'all always say that Trump is allowed his opinion...blah blah blah?

Ahhhhhh, but Nancy Pelosi isn't.... yes, I see how you are toying with it.... only Trump can mouth off....

Lol, I loved Schiff's made story about Trump's call. The shame should've been thrown out then.

 

[Care4all]

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

Be honest, what you want is actually NEW witnesses and evidence that the House failed to obtain. The House is supposed to present their evidence and witness testimony and the Senate is supposed to vote on it. What you're demanding (but won't get) is a circus.

Which Senate impeachment trial heard witnesses that were NOT heard in the House?

Johnson trial had 41 live witnesses...16 were the Defense's witnesses.

 

[hadit]

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

Be honest, what you want is actually NEW witnesses and evidence that the House failed to obtain. The House is supposed to present their evidence and witness testimony and the Senate is supposed to vote on it. What you're demanding (but won't get) is a circus.

Which Senate impeachment trial heard witnesses that were NOT heard in the House?

Johnson trial had 41 live witnesses...16 were the Defense's witnesses.

In this case, the defense correctly estimated that they did not need to present witnesses.

 

[Nostra]

You still are to stupid to breed, it is not NOW and never has been the JOB of the senate to investigate the charges, they simply review the charges and evidence presented and rebutted by the House managers and the defense. Since the House does not call defense witnesses the Senate will usually allow the defense to call them but all it does for the prosecution is call witnesses already interviewed by the House for clarification. IT IS THE JOB OF THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES THEY LEVEL against the President.

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.

You really are dumb, and a serial liar.

Each impeachment is different.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial had 41 live witnesses.

The Clinton trial had a special prosecutor, Ken Starr doing all of the investigating, all of the witness depositions without Whitehouse lawyers, collected and got all material evidence without obstruction from the President, and turned over the Starr report to the House and Senate.

Barr/DOJ refused a special prosecutor for the Ukraine scandal

So?

None of that is an excuse for the House not doing it's job. Stop your pathetic whining.

Trump was EXONERATED.

 

[Care4all]

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

NONE of your concerns take his guilt away.

NONE of the would have, could have or should haves of what went on in the House prevented the Senate From accepting evidence and hearing witnesses.

I find it hard to even understand why anyone would not want to have justice served?

Obviously, the House was more worried about their schedule than pursuing justice. Again, why should they be allowed to require the Senate to make up for their lack?

It wasn't their lacking, it was a Titanium Brick wall of stonewalling by the white house...an abuse of presidential power on an illegal basis of a fabricated right that they called "absolute immunity"...
No one showed up for House questioning, no records were turned over to congress.

The house, had been trying for nearly a year to get Don McGhann to testify on the Mueller Obstruction allegations of the President.

The house had won the case, all the way up the Appeal chain, but now the President is appealing that, to the Supreme Court....if they take the case, it will be a year and a half of stalling, stonewalling, tying it up in the courts...

Justice delayed, is justice denied.....

They didn't even try to get most of what you're demanding (but won't get). Trump said, "Get lost", and they said, "Okay". Along the way, if they could prove their case that Trump really did abuse his power, they would have had a stronger case. As it is, their case was weak, but they forced it through because it was so important to do it fast that they did nothing for a month.

Their case was not weak, their case was overwhelming... Lamar Alexander.

The R Senators were weak, scared to death of the lawless Wrath of Don.

 

[Care4all]

Hearing witnesses and evaluating evidence submitted in the trial IS THE JURY'S duty.

That is not investigating....that's what is expected in a trial.

Calling witnesses after both the prosecution and defense has rested its case, though, is not.

Mitch set the rules with just republican senators, that there would be no evidence and witnesses allowed...till after they presented their cases....then they would take a vote....

It was a HUGE stink, Schumer tried and tried to get the witness and evidence allowed to be presented during each side's arguments... the Rs walked lock step and kept voting it down.

Like I said, there simply is no other way to describe this so called trial, but a SHAM.....crooked.

They used the same rules used in the Clinton trial. Those rules were approved 100-0.

You really are dumb, and a serial liar.

Each impeachment is different.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial had 41 live witnesses.

The Clinton trial had a special prosecutor, Ken Starr doing all of the investigating, all of the witness depositions without Whitehouse lawyers, collected and got all material evidence without obstruction from the President, and turned over the Starr report to the House and Senate.

Barr/DOJ refused a special prosecutor for the Ukraine scandal

So?

None of that is an excuse for the House not doing it's job. Stop your pathetic whining.

Trump was EXONERATED.

What job? Spending years and years in court fighting for evidence that legally should have been turned over?

NOPE!

 

[DOTR]

He didn't win the election either.

Dumbfucks.

Winner that. They deny reality still and wonder why they keep losing. A lot of the reason is because they pretend that losing winning and so have to be satisfied with losing.

 

[Care4all]

Johnson trial with 41 witnesses were near all, New witnesses....it was a trial....

The Clinton case had been thoroughly investigated by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr,” Stewart said. “That’s not the case here.”

Stewart said he is not convinced the proceedings won’t have witnesses, adding that if House prosecutors have witnesses then the Trump defense team likely would call their own – potentially including Hunter Biden.

Even if Trump invokes executive privilege, it wouldn’t necessarily delay the trial for long, he said, referencing the Watergate scandal and the Oval Office tapes of President Richard Nixon.

“The Nixon tapes case was determined in 30 days,” Stewart said. “Litigation doesn’t have to be a long process.”

Nixon resigned Aug. 9, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee advanced articles of impeachment about two weeks after the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release the tapes. The resignation preempted a full House vote.

What History Says About Witnesses at Senate Impeachment Trials