Only In A Democrat Kangaroo Court Can A Democrat Be A Witness, Judge, & Jurer

[BlindBoo]

Shall means must. Most Constitutional experts agree on this.
Trump must be removed from office upon impeachment.

The remedy the Democrats seek doesn't extend any further than what the Constitution allows.

 

[Pogo]

Whelp, here's why we don't do that. A Senate impeachment trial is not a CRIMINAL trial. It isn't proving a crime occurred nor can it administer judicial penalty for it.

Nancy Pelosi already confessed the Impeachment is a sham, an abuse of power being carried out to protect the Democratic Partyfrpm a perceived future political threat.

The FBI has already proved that the events of 6 Jan was the result of pre-planning that did not include the knowledge or participation of the President.

The President's speech Transcripts prove he did not call for violence - just the opposite.

The reason the Democrats have had to put a Trump-hating Democrat as witness, juror, and Judge is because al the evidence - and Pelosi's confession - dstroys their case, whelp.

Absolute fucking bullshit. There is no such "confession" nor does there need to be, as the impeachment trial is ENTIRELY about Rump. Pelosi's only even mentioned in it as a specific personal target of his brownshirts.

Let's bring in witnesses!
I want witnesses NOW!!!

Cool, let's do it. Although you know, there are some 538 witnesses available, over 100 of which are right there in the room, plus an untold number of staffers and spectators. We could set records for number of witnesses in the room --- we probably already have.

But let's bring in who's not in the room, starting with Mike Pence. And then once he's safely out of the room, Rump himself. Let's do it. Hell bring in Rooty and the hair dye too. We'll have pizza delivered. Complete with a knife and fork so Rump can have some too.

Psssssstt....I know your very impressed with yourself and your knowledge of the constitution and the impeachment process but are you sure we need over 500 witnesses claiming the capital was breached? I'm no constitutional expert like yourself, but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it was. Now again, I'm no impeachment expert like yourself, but aren't the dems trying to prove Trump was the primary reason the breached occurred? So I'm wondering why the dems are spending so much time and effort on the breach itself and not spending more time showing all the evidence proving Trump incited it? Im sure the readers of this forum would appreciate the thoughts of someone with your expertise in both the constitution and the impeachment process.

Read back --- another poster altogether, one Billy the Kidd, started crowing about how he wanted hundreds (thousands, millions) of witnesses, presumably as a delaying tactic. I just called his bluff.

 

[B. Kidd]

Whelp, here's why we don't do that. A Senate impeachment trial is not a CRIMINAL trial. It isn't proving a crime occurred nor can it administer judicial penalty for it.

Nancy Pelosi already confessed the Impeachment is a sham, an abuse of power being carried out to protect the Democratic Partyfrpm a perceived future political threat.

The FBI has already proved that the events of 6 Jan was the result of pre-planning that did not include the knowledge or participation of the President.

The President's speech Transcripts prove he did not call for violence - just the opposite.

The reason the Democrats have had to put a Trump-hating Democrat as witness, juror, and Judge is because al the evidence - and Pelosi's confession - dstroys their case, whelp.

Absolute fucking bullshit. There is no such "confession" nor does there need to be, as the impeachment trial is ENTIRELY about Rump. Pelosi's only even mentioned in it as a specific personal target of his brownshirts.

Let's bring in witnesses!
I want witnesses NOW!!!

Cool, let's do it. Although you know, there are some 538 witnesses available, over 100 of which are right there in the room, plus an untold number of staffers and spectators. We could set records for number of witnesses in the room --- we probably already have.

But let's bring in who's not in the room, starting with Mike Pence. And then once he's safely out of the room, Rump himself. Let's do it. Hell bring in Rooty and the hair dye too. We'll have pizza delivered. Complete with a knife and fork so Rump can have some too.

Psssssstt....I know your very impressed with yourself and your knowledge of the constitution and the impeachment process but are you sure we need over 500 witnesses claiming the capital was breached? I'm no constitutional expert like yourself, but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it was. Now again, I'm no impeachment expert like yourself, but aren't the dems trying to prove Trump was the primary reason the breached occurred? So I'm wondering why the dems are spending so much time and effort on the breach itself and not spending more time showing all the evidence proving Trump incited it? Im sure the readers of this forum would appreciate the thoughts of someone with your expertise in both the constitution and the impeachment process.

Read back --- another poster altogether, one Billy the Kidd, started crowing about how he wanted hundreds (thousands, millions) of witnesses, presumably as a delaying tactic. I just called his bluff.

Yupp, I want at least 2,000 witnesses to run this bitch up to the mid-terms; and let's start with every politician who has publicly used the word 'fight'!

 

[Pogo]

Whelp, here's why we don't do that. A Senate impeachment trial is not a CRIMINAL trial. It isn't proving a crime occurred nor can it administer judicial penalty for it.

Nancy Pelosi already confessed the Impeachment is a sham, an abuse of power being carried out to protect the Democratic Partyfrpm a perceived future political threat.

The FBI has already proved that the events of 6 Jan was the result of pre-planning that did not include the knowledge or participation of the President.

The President's speech Transcripts prove he did not call for violence - just the opposite.

The reason the Democrats have had to put a Trump-hating Democrat as witness, juror, and Judge is because al the evidence - and Pelosi's confession - dstroys their case, whelp.

Absolute fucking bullshit. There is no such "confession" nor does there need to be, as the impeachment trial is ENTIRELY about Rump. Pelosi's only even mentioned in it as a specific personal target of his brownshirts.

Let's bring in witnesses!
I want witnesses NOW!!!

Cool, let's do it. Although you know, there are some 538 witnesses available, over 100 of which are right there in the room, plus an untold number of staffers and spectators. We could set records for number of witnesses in the room --- we probably already have.

But let's bring in who's not in the room, starting with Mike Pence. And then once he's safely out of the room, Rump himself. Let's do it. Hell bring in Rooty and the hair dye too. We'll have pizza delivered. Complete with a knife and fork so Rump can have some too.

Psssssstt....I know your very impressed with yourself and your knowledge of the constitution and the impeachment process but are you sure we need over 500 witnesses claiming the capital was breached? I'm no constitutional expert like yourself, but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it was. Now again, I'm no impeachment expert like yourself, but aren't the dems trying to prove Trump was the primary reason the breached occurred? So I'm wondering why the dems are spending so much time and effort on the breach itself and not spending more time showing all the evidence proving Trump incited it? Im sure the readers of this forum would appreciate the thoughts of someone with your expertise in both the constitution and the impeachment process.

Read back --- another poster altogether, one Billy the Kidd, started crowing about how he wanted hundreds (thousands, millions) of witnesses, presumably as a delaying tactic. I just called his bluff.

Yupp, I want at least 2,000 witnesses to run this bitch up to the mid-terms; and let's start with every politician who has publicly used the word 'fight'!

You'll have to impeach those politicians first. That is, the ones you can, which of course won't include Congresscritters, who can't be impeached. And even when you do that's a whole separate trial.