Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[bigrebnc1775]

Well then, the Dimwingers should cancel today's vote, go thru the courts, and try to build a case.

Why doesn't Trump just allow the witnesses to testify?

It's not the Senate's job why didn't Schiff allow the whistleblower to testify?

 

[colfax_m]

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.



it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.

Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.

What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)

You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?

An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".

Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.

Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!

The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.

The Constitution may not define it as you think but laws do define what is and is not

 

[Faun]

Since when are we cool with politicians directing investigations against their rivals? That’s some real corrupt Soviet tactics right there.

So is adam schiff obtaining the phone records of republican politicians

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and he can investigate wrongdoing by anyone

You're ineducable, huh? No, Trump is not the chief law enforcement officer and while he can appoint or fire the Attorney General, he can't force them to investigate whomever he wants. He can ask them and they might but they are not obliged to do so.

True

Trump cant force anyone to do anything

No one has that authority except God

And even He chooses to allow us free will

But trump has responsibility for enforcing the laws

"True"

Then why do you continue to falsely assert that?

Because trump is the ultimate law enforcer

Which is why he has a Department of Justice, which is why the head of that department is the chief law enforcement officer. Since you claim to know this, who knows why you repeat your nonsense that Trump is the "top cop" or "chief law enforcement officer?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

The Senate is the jury that's all they are

 

[Faun]

Rudy is his private lawyer who is not and can not enforce laws.

Trump has not communicated any order to the DoJ to investigate this issue so Durham is not working on it.

Rudy can investigate crimes

He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of the private client, Donald Trump.

I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Trump can have rudi investigate wrongdoing bt US government officials in a foreign country

Particularly when he does not trust the Deep State within the DOJ

Not into a political rival running for the same office as himself, he can't.

Yes he can

No, he can't. That violates the law.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or​

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.​

​

 

[Pogo]

Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.

What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)

You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?

An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".

Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.

Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!

The COTUS does not define what makes a "high crime or misdemeanor". You know, like it doesn't define "well oiled militia" or whatever it is.

The Constitution may not define it as you think but laws do define what is and is not

The Constitution **IS** the law on that.

 

[Siete]

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

the constitution makes it clear there is no jury in an impeachment -

does anyone think the board Russians give a shit what OUR constitution states and means -- **** no they dont.

 

[Faun]

He can but you can’t claim it has anything to do with law enforcement.

I do claim its about law enforcement

Rudy can’t enforce the law. He can’t indict or prosecute. Not without being approved by the Senate. He has no authority. No force of government behind him. And most importantly, he has no accountability. The government cannot launch investigations without cause. Investigating without cause is violating civil rights. If Rudy were acting on behalf of the government, he would have to follow the rules.

He’s not.

Now you are repeating yourself

Rudy can investigate criminal activity

For what purpose other than to benefit his client?

To serve justice

Biden is dirty and all for the sake of providing for his deadbeat son

Your hollow claims that Biden is dirty are unproven.

And even if he was, that doesn't give a private attorney the legal authority to subvert the law to solicit a foreign leader to investigate his client's political rivals.

 

[colfax_m]

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

The Senate is the jury that's all they are

I’ve never heard of a jury vote on witnesses to be called in a case, have you?

 

[OKTexas]

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

That's a problem. No?

NO!

.

So that's fine for any future president to do?
Even Dem presidents?

A process has been developed over the last 240 years, any president if free to demand that process be followed.

.

 

[Faun]

In Trump's phone call...

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."​

All true, Biden was using Ukraine to launder US taxpayer money and no bribery or quid pro quo.

It's illegal for a candidate to solicit foreign aid for their campaign.

You mean, like when Hillary paid millions to Russia for a fake dossier to use against Trump?

Liar. Hillary didn't pay Russians. She paid Fusion GPS, an American firm.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

We call that money laundering, idiot.

LOLOL

Who cares what idiots like you call it?

 

[bripat9643]

Rudy can investigate crimes

He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of the private client, Donald Trump.

I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Trump can have rudi investigate wrongdoing bt US government officials in a foreign country

Particularly when he does not trust the Deep State within the DOJ

Not into a political rival running for the same office as himself, he can't.

Yes he can

No, he can't. That violates the law.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or​

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
​

Rudi's work does not constitute a foreign donation, moron.

 

[Faun]

Trump isn’t invoking his 5th amendment rights. He is preventing a constitutional process.

It was an analogy, Colfax! Trump is invoking his Executive Privilege rights. You have no more right to impeach him for that then a prosecutor has to bring charges against a citizen for invoking any of THEIR rights!

He's not invoking executive privilege either. He's not doing anything other than crumpling them up and throwing them in the shredder.

Answer me one question please.
What do you think would happen to you if your ignored a subpoena?

He ignored nothing. He challenged them in court, per our Constitution. Just because Dimwingere in a hurry to vote on their coup doesn't mean he is obstructing Congress.

Moron.

Even if Trump is within he legal right to prevent witness testimony (which he isn't), he is still preventing information from being added to the record for the Senate trial. Information he implies exonerates him by stating he did nothing wrong. If that's true, why not let the witnesses testify?

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Schifferbrains and Nazi Pelousy couldn't wait for court rulings. That's on them, not Trump.

The Senate is the jury. The House needs to present the case it has..........which is nothing. Jurors don't call witnesses, Dummy.

They not just the trial's jurors, they're also the trial's lawyers, presenting their case for or against the impeachment. Lawyers call witnesses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

The Senate is the jury that's all they are

I’ve never heard of a jury vote on witnesses to be called in a case, have you?

So, Schumer has no right to call any witnesses?

 

[colfax_m]

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

It's not the jury's job to look for evidence for the accusers.

The senate is more than the jury during impeachment. Normally, a jury doesn’t have the authority to call witnesses.

The Senate is the jury that's all they are

I’ve never heard of a jury vote on witnesses to be called in a case, have you?

So, Schumer has no right to call any witnesses?

He has a right to ask the Senate to vote on witnesses and to vote himself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I do claim its about law enforcement

Rudy can’t enforce the law. He can’t indict or prosecute. Not without being approved by the Senate. He has no authority. No force of government behind him. And most importantly, he has no accountability. The government cannot launch investigations without cause. Investigating without cause is violating civil rights. If Rudy were acting on behalf of the government, he would have to follow the rules.

He’s not.

Now you are repeating yourself

Rudy can investigate criminal activity

For what purpose other than to benefit his client?

To serve justice

Biden is dirty and all for the sake of providing for his deadbeat son

Your hollow claims that Biden is dirty are unproven.

And even if he was, that doesn't give a private attorney the legal authority to subvert the law to solicit a foreign leader to investigate his client's political rivals.

Hollow? How is laundering $1,000,000 annually to his family hollow? And that's just from one Ukrainian Board

 

[Mac-7]

So is adam schiff obtaining the phone records of republican politicians

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and he can investigate wrongdoing by anyone

You're ineducable, huh? No, Trump is not the chief law enforcement officer and while he can appoint or fire the Attorney General, he can't force them to investigate whomever he wants. He can ask them and they might but they are not obliged to do so.

True

Trump cant force anyone to do anything

No one has that authority except God

And even He chooses to allow us free will

But trump has responsibility for enforcing the laws

"True"

Then why do you continue to falsely assert that?

Because trump is the ultimate law enforcer

Which is why he has a Department of Justice, which is why the head of that department is the chief law enforcement officer. Since you claim to know this, who knows why you repeat your nonsense that Trump is the "top cop" or "chief law enforcement officer?"

Trump is ghe highest ranking enforcer of the law

 

[conserveguy877]

Schumer trying to delay this impeachment hoax till the 2020 re-election for Trump. The fix is in.

 

[Mac-7]

Rudy can investigate crimes

He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of the private client, Donald Trump.

I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Trump can have rudi investigate wrongdoing bt US government officials in a foreign country

Particularly when he does not trust the Deep State within the DOJ

Not into a political rival running for the same office as himself, he can't.

Yes he can

No, he can't. That violates the law.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or​

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
​

None of that applies to trump