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

[Faun]

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

It’s the Senate’s responsibility to have a trail where the facts are heard and a verdict is reached. The Senate Republicans are not indicating they will live up to that responsibility.

It is Pelosi who is putting the case in jeopardy by refusing to send the articles over. Where is your outrage at her tank declaration that she won't live up to her responsibility to have the case tried? The Senate can't do anything until she makes the move, so your complaining about them is false.

Who said she won't send them??

 

[hadit]

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

It’s the Senate’s responsibility to have a trail where the facts are heard and a verdict is reached. The Senate Republicans are not indicating they will live up to that responsibility.

It is Pelosi who is putting the case in jeopardy by refusing to send the articles over. Where is your outrage at her tank declaration that she won't live up to her responsibility to have the case tried? The Senate can't do anything until she makes the move, so your complaining about them is false.

Who said she won't send them??

She hasn't yet, so until she does, she's not completed her responsibility. Literally, the Senate can do nothing until she does.

 

[colfax_m]

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

It’s the Senate’s responsibility to have a trail where the facts are heard and a verdict is reached. The Senate Republicans are not indicating they will live up to that responsibility.

It is Pelosi who is putting the case in jeopardy by refusing to send the articles over. Where is your outrage at her tank declaration that she won't live up to her responsibility to have the case tried? The Senate can't do anything until she makes the move, so your complaining about them is false.

As if we are deaf and haven’t heard Senate leadership talking about their intentions to have a show trial.

I oppose Pelosi holding up the articles.

 

[Pogo]

Buck up, snowflakes. The Democrats - Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Clinesmith, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Schiff, and Nadler - will not get dragged before the Senate to testify and answer for their crimes in a 'reckoning' long overdue.

How about Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo (all first-hand fact witnesses) testify in the Senate, Twinkie?

Better yet, how 'bout the ***** Grabber in Chief mans up and testifies under oath before the American people?

"Under oath" wouldn't mean diddly. This worm has already testified under oath that he used pseudonyms like "John Miller" and "John Baron", and then afterward, denied what he just affirmed under oath. "Oath" means nothing to a moron who makes up his own reality on the spot.

 

[Pogo]

But it’s not the only option available to the country.

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION. (A) the results of an election, once certified, are recorded forever; and (B) if a POTUS is removed it is his own VP who succeeds to the throne, not some other candidate from any election.

 

[Pogo]

Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

Where have you ever seen a trial rely on falsified documents
presented to a judge by an intelligence agency?

Doesn't address the question, now does it.

 

[easyt65]

"Under oath" wouldn't mean diddly. This worm has already testified under oath that he used pseudonyms like "John Miller" and "John Baron", and then afterward, denied what he just affirmed under oath. "Oath" means nothing to a moron who makes up his own reality on the spot.

You mean like how Obama and almost every member of his Cabinet, all of his agency directors were exposed for using private e-mails and using aliases?! Like how Barry claimed he learned of Hillary's private server from the media only to have it exposed he had been e-mailing her ass for a long time using his own alias?

I just love it when Democrats and snowflakes get busted for having done / doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

 

[colfax_m]

But it’s not the only option available to the country.

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Politicizing the law? Is that like launching investigations to harm political opponents?

 

[Pogo]

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 a trial where the defense can't call witnesses?

No. I've never seen a trial like that.

But I live in America. Where are you?

Thanks for narrowing your QTH down to two continents. Somewhere between Tierra del Fuego and the North Pole then. Uruguay? Just a stab in the dark.

Wherever that may be in between those points, clearly you've never been in a courtroom.

 

[Mac-7]

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Politicizing the law? Is that like launching investigations to harm political opponents?

Like the man said, libs who live by the sword die by the sword

 

[Pogo]

"Under oath" wouldn't mean diddly. This worm has already testified under oath that he used pseudonyms like "John Miller" and "John Baron", and then afterward, denied what he just affirmed under oath. "Oath" means nothing to a moron who makes up his own reality on the spot.

You mean like how Obama and almost every member of his Cabinet, all of his agency directors were exposed for using private e-mails and using aliases?! Like how Barry claimed he learned of Hillary's private server from the media only to have it exposed he had been e-mailing her ass for a long time using his own alias?

I just love it when Democrats and snowflakes get busted for having done / doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

Aaaaaaaaaaand Pogo's Law generates yet another nickel.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

What other relevant information do you imagine further WB testimony would produce?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

What other relevant information do you imagine further WB testimony would produce?

1. We need to find out if he actually listened to the call itself
2. To whom did he report the call and Trump's "crime"?
3. When did he contact Adam Schiff?

 

[easyt65]

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION.

Perhaps you should tell both Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler this, since both of them opined in opposition to Impeachment years ago that Impeachment, especially so close to an election, equates to stripping the American people of their right to exercise their Constitutional Right to vote and choose their own leaders.

Perhaps you should tell Pelosi this, who stated the American people can not be trusted with picking their own President / with deciding if President Trump should remain President, based on their choice in 2016.

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country."

Nancy Pelosi declared THESE were the requirements for Impeachment by the House. She failed to meet her own standards.

'Compelling, Overwhelming'
ZERO crime
ZERO evidence of a crime
ZERO witnesses
Not one person who testified when tasked to do so could name a crime or Impeachable offense.
Testimony from a Democrat Constitutional expert stating the President did not abuse his powers, did not break the law, did not commit crimes...but the Democrats in the House abused theirs.

Bipartisan:
Not only did the Democrats / Pelosi FAIL achieve this goal but they drove DEMOCRATS to to cross the isle to vote against what they wee doing, 1 Democrat to completely change parties over what the Democrats proved what they were willing to do to regain power, and 1 2020 candidate who chose to vote 'present' so she could claim to have supported Impeachment or not, depending on what crowd she stands n front of.

Like the Russians, though, she and her fellow Democrats successfully divided this nation for 3+ years...and continues to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Politicizing the law? Is that like launching investigations to harm political opponents?

Like the man said, libs who live by the sword die by the sword

Impeachment is political. Justice shouldn’t be.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For what purpose?

What purpose? To determine if the person is telling the truth or not. They called many other witnesses, why would they not call the one that made the initial accusation? We can't have a system where anyone can make any claim they would like and then not be questioned. That is ridiculous.

Hmm, Trump can make any claim he wants. Can we question him?

How are you going to determine if the whistleblower is “telling the truth” or not? Didn’t we already do that with testimony from witnesses?

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I guess you missed that part. I guess you want to change the entire court system to get your wishes. No reason to cross-examine those who make accustations against others. How absurd can you be?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

Interesting.

They then somehow were able to coordinate corroborating testimony from 17 witnesses. Most of whom work for the president.


Derp....

 

[hadit]

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

What other relevant information do you imagine further WB testimony would produce?

1. Who leaked to the WB what he thought were the contents of a presidential phone call with a foreign leader, did they have the authority to pass it, and did the WB have authority to receive it.
2. What was the extent of his/her involvement with Schiff's office in drafting the "complaint".
3. To whom he passed what he thought were the contents of a presidential call with a foreign leader.
4. Are they a real person or a pretext created to give Schiff cover to go after the president.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION.

Perhaps you should tell both Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler this, since both of them opined in opposition to Impeachment years ago that Impeachment, especially so close to an election, equates to stripping the American people of their right to exercise their Constitutional Right to vote and choose their own leaders.

[irrelevant incoherent babbling excised].

Take it up with Nancy Frickin' Pelosi then because this is ***ME*** posting, not Nancy Frickin' Pelosi.

BESIDES WHICH, the poster's comment --- which you removed so it wouldn't come back to haunt you but here it comes anyway ---- ***CLEARLY*** referred to an election in PAST TENSE. Roll tape.

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

See if you can find the past tense verb in there. I kinda highlighted it to give you a head start.

I'm sure Russian is a fun language but go learn to English.

 

[hadit]

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION.

Perhaps you should tell both Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler this, since both of them opined in opposition to Impeachment years ago that Impeachment, especially so close to an election, equates to stripping the American people of their right to exercise their Constitutional Right to vote and choose their own leaders.

Perhaps you should tell Pelosi this, who stated the American people can not be trusted with picking their own President / with deciding if President Trump should remain President, based on their choice in 2016.

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country."

Nancy Pelosi declared THESE were the requirements for Impeachment by the House. She failed to meet her own standards.

'Compelling, Overwhelming'
ZERO crime
ZERO evidence of a crime
ZERO witnesses
Not one person who testified when tasked to do so could name a crime or Impeachable offense.
Testimony from a Democrat Constitutional expert stating the President did not abuse his powers, did not break the law, did not commit crimes...but the Democrats in the House abused theirs.

Bipartisan:
Not only did the Democrats / Pelosi FAIL achieve this goal but they drove DEMOCRATS to to cross the isle to vote against what they wee doing, 1 Democrat to completely change parties over what the Democrats proved what they were willing to do to regain power, and 1 2020 candidate who chose to vote 'present' so she could claim to have supported Impeachment or not, depending on what crowd she stands n front of.

Like the Russians, though, she and her fellow Democrats successfully divided this nation for 3+ years...and continues to do so.

I think Schiff sold her a bill of goods, claiming he had a phone call they could lie about because Trump would hide it. My guess is she knew the jig was up when he released the transcript, but it was too late to pull out.

 

[AntonToo]

What never happened?

The thing that Sondland testified to happening?

Lets have Jiuliani and other Trump people stop hiding, come to Congress and say it.

No. Soldland said he 'felt' like something happened but that he heard Trump say "I want nothing. No Quid Pro Quo".

Trump's denials to Sondland AFTER GETTING CAUGHT are not credible. Stop repeating that braindead nonsense.

Sondland did not "feel" like he was telling Ukrainians and other Diplomats that everything including millitary aid was contigent on public announcement of investigation.He didn't "feel" like he was working with other admin members on the content of Zelensky's public announcement.

These are ACTUAL THINGS THAT HE DID. That is actual quid-pro-quo arrangement he was working on for the President of the United States communicated to him directly and indirectly by Trump's lawyer named Jiuliani..

You say he was just imagining Trump wanting him to conduct foreign policy in that way?
You say he doesn't knwo what he is tlaking about when he admits that Trump doesn't give a shit about Ukraine is only interested in political investigations?

Ok, lets ask Jiuliani what Sondland is talking about in front of Congress.

Why is this so objectionable to Republicans? Why is hearing from the people most involved here is a matter of such wholesale pushback from the Administration?

Because they don't want you to hear the truth, thats why my gullible rw friends.