Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[jc456]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Obviously that model isn't quite correct is it. The House proceedings were very much part of the overall trial. The House is not a Grand Jury.

I did not say it was an exact analogy. House impeaches; Senate tries.

Y'all know what the Constitution is I hope. Here is what the Constitution says.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

***************************************************

What is so hard to comprehend about that simple statement. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

you're still wrong. The house impeaches and the house brings their articles in for a vote. that's it. there isn't any witnesses. never has been. EVAH!!!! I don't care what Schitt's lie was.

 

[Nostra]

Crazy Nancy Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Says If Senate Votes to Acquit President Trump “He Will Not Be Acquitted”

Our Beloved President Trump’s defense team absolutely destroyed Bug-eyed Schiff and the Dems, causing Crazy Nancy to have another meltdown during a press conference.

A reporter asked Crazy Nancy if Trump will be “emboldened” if the senate acquits him.

“Well he will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial and when you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation,” Crazy Nancy said.

Crazy Nancy tried to drag out impeachment as long as possible by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate for 33 days.

The House Democrats’ case was so weak that Trump’s defense team obliterated Bug-eyed Schiff and Crazy Nancy in just a few days with facts.

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Obviously that model isn't quite correct is it. The House proceedings were very much part of the overall trial. The House is not a Grand Jury.

I did not say it was an exact analogy. House impeaches; Senate tries.

Y'all know what the Constitution is I hope. Here is what the Constitution says.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

***************************************************

What is so hard to comprehend about that simple statement. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

And they did try it. YOUR House Clowns presented their 'OVERWHELMING" case with their witnesses. The Senate does not conduct the investigation, that is the responsibility of the House.

YOUR House Clowns didn't do their job, and are now begging the Senate to do it for them.

 

[JLW]

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. My point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to grand jury testimoney. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

It would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

 

[jc456]

Nancy Pelosi is right. If the Senate does not call witnesses, then it was just a show trial. It was a rigged jury from the start. A cowed jury. Then Trump is just another crook who got off.

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury indicts then the Prosecution takes it to trial. They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room , however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. Same here. The essentially indicts and the Senate tries the case. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Obviously that model isn't quite correct is it. The House proceedings were very much part of the overall trial. The House is not a Grand Jury.

I did not say it was an exact analogy. House impeaches; Senate tries.

Y'all know what the Constitution is I hope. Here is what the Constitution says.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

***************************************************

What is so hard to comprehend about that simple statement. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

And they did try it. YOUR House Clowns presented their 'OVERWHELMING" case with their witnesses. The Senate does not conduct the investigation, that is the responsibility of the House.

YOUR House Clowns didn't do their job, and are now begging the Senate to do it for them.

as they scream unfair while they ignored every fair due process step in the house. They think americans are stupid. We will see today.

 

[jc456]

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

 

[Nostra]

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

 

[JLW]

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

Try Again and stop projecting.

 

[Nostra]

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

 

[jc456]

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

and Schitt's lied. on the senate floor. they have no integrity.

 

[jc456]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

they listened to the witnesses that were brought into the house, that's it.

Perhaps he can insult us again and say we're partisan hacks or something. it will make him feel so much better.

 

[Nostra]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

I see you found Wiki.


All had testified in the House. All three clarified their previous testimony behind closed doors, and the Dimwingers chose what to make public and what to keep hidden.

Not a single new witness. None testified publicly. That's not what your House Clowns are trying to get.

You lose again.

 

[jc456]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

Try Again and stop projecting.

there it is. those three witnesses testified in the house. no new witnesses.

 

[JLW]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

Your idiocy is unbelievable. I caught you in a lie and then you accuse me. What a moron. Admit you were wrong about Clinton, Dumbass. There were witnesses.

 

[Nostra]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

and Schitt's lied. on the senate floor. they have no integrity.

And lil Johnny bought the lies.

 

[Nostra]

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

Your idiocy is unbelievable. I caught you in a lie and then you accuse me. What a moron. Admit you were wrong about Clinton, Dumbass. There were witnesses.

What was my lie? Be specific. Quote it, and point out the lie.

Watch this...........

 

[jc456]

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

Your idiocy is unbelievable. I caught you in a lie and then you accuse me. What a moron. Admit you were wrong about Clinton, Dumbass. There were witnesses.

no you didn't. you lie to yourself to make yourself feel better. but son, no new witnesses have ever testified in the senate. Zip. Now find one where they did then you can call me a liar. And if you find one, I will admit my error since I have dignity.

 

[JLW]

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

Try Again and stop projecting.

there it is. those three witnesses testified in the house. no new witnesses.

I want to thank you and Nosetro for proving my point. The point was the Senate calls witnesses. Game, set and match.

 

[Nostra]

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

Try Again and stop projecting.

there it is. those three witnesses testified in the house. no new witnesses.

I want to thank you and Nosetro for proving my point. The point was the Senate calls witnesses. Game, set and match.

If your point was to prove you are a liar, we did prove your point.

 

[jc456]

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. MY point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to depositions. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Listen it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

How many NEW witnesses testified during the Clinton trial?

ZERO

Another lie by you is exposed.

At the Clinton impeachment they heard from three witnesses.

Try Again and stop projecting.

there it is. those three witnesses testified in the house. no new witnesses.

I want to thank you and Nosetro for proving my point. The point was the Senate calls witnesses. Game, set and match.

oh for fk sake. that is inaccurate. they don't. again, name one witness that didn't testify in the house? come on son grow up and act like a man.

 

[JLW]

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You know. you're ignorance knows no bounds as to what I am saying. Listen, Dimwit, it would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a ****." That would be a fair answer.

Your stupidity in not understanding the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate had an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

no, you're fk'd in the head. you don't speak for anyone but yourself. so stop projecting, it isn't becoming.

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

Your idiocy is unbelievable. I caught you in a lie and then you accuse me. What a moron. Admit you were wrong about Clinton, Dumbass. There were witnesses.

What was my lie? Be specific. Quote it, and point out the lie.

Watch this...........

Yeah, you went and modified your post. But you did prove my point that I was making that the Senate calls witnesses. You knew your dumbass was wrong, so you changed your position to new witnesses. Well I have news for you, the Senate can call who it wants as witnesses like in every trial. It should have called at least some witnesses. The whole trial was a sham. I know you guys are scared to death of Bolton. He knows the truth. You lemmings despise truth.