Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[jc456]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

oh fk, are we going to go through this one the same as the 67 senator rule? dude, they're jurors. look it up. shit, come on man, do some fking homework before pronouncing your stupid.

 

[jc456]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

Who either convicts, or acquits, in a trial? The Jury, which is exactly what the role of the 100 Senators is, IQ7.

it is amazing that he wishes to continually stand up and shout, lookie over here, I'm stupid!!!!

 

[WEATHER53]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

See you baffled debate impaired people Always drop the LOL when they are bested and cannot respond
Being entirely feelings driven they feel that a LOL is just The Most damaging and defeating rebuke when in fact it is a white flag surrender notice to those of us who Think,

 

[easyt65]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

See you baffled debate impaired people Always drop the LOL when they are bested and cannot respond
Being entirely feelings driven they feel that a LOL is just The Most damaging and defeating rebuke when in fact it is a white flag surrender notice to those of us who Think,

Again, I love how snowflakes accuse others of doing what they have done / do...

Bwuhahahaha.....

 

[Rye Catcher]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

 

[Nostra]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

It stems from the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

 

[Nostra]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

Who either convicts, or acquits, in a trial? The Jury, which is exactly what the role of the 100 Senators is, IQ7.

it is amazing that he wishes to continually stand up and shout, lookie over here, I'm stupid!!!!

In another thread he is still trying to tell me he has explained how just 51 Senators will remove Trump during his 2nd term.

 

[easyt65]

DESTRUCTION OF A FALSE NARRACTIVE / DESTRUCTION OF FALSE ACCUSATION BEGINS WITH REPORTING THE TRUTH AND TO CALLING OUT THE LIARS:


"This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal:

Four (4) months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder."


"Fact: Ukraine law enforcement reopened the Burisma investigation in early 2019, well before President Trump mentioned the matter to Ukraine’s new president Vlodymyr Zelensky.

"This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.

The effort began independent of Trump or his lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s legal work. In fact, it was NABU – the very agency Joe Biden and the Obama administration helped start – that recommended in February 2019 to reopen the probe.

NABU director Artem Sytnyk made this announcement that he was recommending a new notice of suspicion be opened to launch the case against Burisma and its founder because of new evidence uncovered by detectives.

Ukrainian officials said that new evidence included records suggesting a possible money laundering scheme dating to 2010 and continuing until 2015.

A month later in March 2019, Deputy Prosecutor General Konstantin Kulyk officially filed this notice of suspicion re-opening the case."



Joe Biden’s ‘conspiracy theory’ memo to U.S. media doesn’t match the facts | John Solomon Reports

 

[jc456]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

he can't? just too funny.

 

[WEATHER53]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

See you baffled debate impaired people Always drop the LOL when they are bested and cannot respond
Being entirely feelings driven they feel that a LOL is just The Most damaging and defeating rebuke when in fact it is a white flag surrender notice to those of us who Think,

Again, I love how snowflakes accuse others of doing what they have done / do...

Bwuhahahaha.....

Taking the content of a comment and slobbering back “you too” is equally as vacant as LOL
Thank you for raising your self identification dummy hand

 

[easyt65]

Taking the content of a comment and slobbering back “you too” is equally as vacant as LOL
Thank you for raising your self identification dummy hand

Snowflakes who refuse to accept the fact that Obama's FBI hid evidence while committing FISA Court abuse to illegally spied on Trump and his team ... but they are now attempting to claim Trump using the same 'Executive Privilege' Barry did (when he tried to hide the details of his gun-running op, Fast and Furious) is now somehow 'a guilty person hiding evidence'...

It's one of those hypocrisy-pointing-out drop mic moments, demonstrating how Dems and snowflakes love to accuse others of doing what they have done / do.....

Priceless.

 

[Rye Catcher]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

It stems from the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

See: Landmark Supreme Court Cases | U.S. v. Nixon: Summary of the Decision

From the link:

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States and against President Nixon. Chief Justice Burger, wrote the opinion for the Court, which concluded that presidents do enjoy a constitutionally protected executive privilege, but that the privilege was not absolute. The Court decided that in this case, the President’s interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the interests of the judiciary in providing a fair trial with full factual disclosure.

President Nixon’s attorneys first argued that the doctrine of separation of powers prevented the Supreme Court from hearing this case at all. They asserted that because the judicial and executive branches are separate, each with its own functions, the judicial branch should not be allowed to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The Court rejected this argument, responding that the case raised a constitutional question, and therefore clearly fell within the functions of the judicial branch as interpreter of the Constitution. To support this ruling, the justices cited the Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

President Nixon’s lawyers also asserted that the Court should find the president was entitled to absolute executive privilege. This meant that he could not be forced to reveal any of his confidential communications unless he chose to. The lawyers set out two reasons to support their argument. First, the president needed honest advice from his advisors, and these advisors might be uncomfortable giving advice if they knew that it could become public. Second, these confidential communications were essential for the president to carry out the duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.

The Court acknowledged the validity of these interests and that the president was entitled to a degree of executive privilege. This privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the interest of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted with the interests of the judicial branch in providing a full and fair trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all facts and relevant information. The justices asserted that the interests of the president must be balanced against the interests of the judicial branch when these interests conflict.

The justices reasoned that the judiciary’s interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed President Nixon’s interest in keeping the content of his tapes secret. One reason for this was that the only issue before the Court was whether the trial judge could privately inspect the tapes to determine whether they were essential to a fair trial. The justices further stated that there would be cases in which the president’s need for confidentiality would outweigh the interests of the judicial branch, such as when the secret communication involved “military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.”

 

[toobfreak]

Democrats need to start working for the people and this country, and put their animosity aside!

Democrats ARE working for the people! At least SOME of them. A small faction of individuals who have nothing but animosity, fear and revenge. Trump scares the CRAP out of them that he might bust up their cozy little nest.

 

[easyt65]

The House voted to Impeach the President based on EXISTING information, NOT on what other information there might be 'out there'. The Senate wants to know what THAT EXISTING information / case was....

THAT information, THAT case, on which they based their Impeachment of the President, either warrants Impeachment - which they already voted for, or it does NOT.

All the Senate is asking the House Managers to do is present THAT case / evidence....

Still no reasonable answer from Snowflakes:

WHY can't House Coup Managers present the EXISTING case / information that led the House to Impeach / that was the basis for the House's decision to Impeach the President?

 

[ChrisL]

The House voted to Impeach the President based on EXISTING information, NOT on what other information there might be 'out there'. The Senate wants to know what THAT EXISTING information / case was....

THAT information, THAT case, on which they based their Impeachment of the President, either warrants Impeachment - which they already voted for, or it does NOT.

All the Senate is asking the House Managers to do is present THAT case / evidence....

Still no reasonable answer from Snowflakes:

WHY can't House Coup Managers present the EXISTING case / information that led the House to Impeach / that was the basis for the House's decision to Impeach the President?

Obviously they aren't satisfied with their own findings.

 

[WEATHER53]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

It stems from the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

Which in baby talk for libbies translates to its not the way you feel it should be.

 

[toobfreak]

DEMS AINT GOT NO DAMN EVIDENCE.

Get your head out of your ass for once and admit that the remedy to a blocked or ignored subpoena is to go to court and let the court settle it. You know the court, 7, its that THIRD branch of government between the Congress and the Exec?

But the jackass Democrats refused and impeached anyway. If they got no damn evidence as you say, then you just admitted the impeachment was groundless, baseless and illegal, done purely out of partisan spite. In fact, the 2nd article was nothing more than a Dem temper tantrum because Trump didn't jump when the House told him to.

Now suffer the consequences.

 

[Nostra]

This thread has the same members using the same echoes of the defense attorneys for The President. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case the GOP are following Moscow Mitch to create a shame trial, one without witnesses or documents.

I'm surprised that the Chief Justice has not sanctioned the defense team for lying, there is no mention of Executive Privilege in the Constitution, something iterated several times during their opening statements.

It stems from the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

See: Landmark Supreme Court Cases | U.S. v. Nixon: Summary of the Decision

From the link:

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States and against President Nixon. Chief Justice Burger, wrote the opinion for the Court, which concluded that presidents do enjoy a constitutionally protected executive privilege, but that the privilege was not absolute. The Court decided that in this case, the President’s interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the interests of the judiciary in providing a fair trial with full factual disclosure.

President Nixon’s attorneys first argued that the doctrine of separation of powers prevented the Supreme Court from hearing this case at all. They asserted that because the judicial and executive branches are separate, each with its own functions, the judicial branch should not be allowed to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The Court rejected this argument, responding that the case raised a constitutional question, and therefore clearly fell within the functions of the judicial branch as interpreter of the Constitution. To support this ruling, the justices cited the Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

President Nixon’s lawyers also asserted that the Court should find the president was entitled to absolute executive privilege. This meant that he could not be forced to reveal any of his confidential communications unless he chose to. The lawyers set out two reasons to support their argument. First, the president needed honest advice from his advisors, and these advisors might be uncomfortable giving advice if they knew that it could become public. Second, these confidential communications were essential for the president to carry out the duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.

The Court acknowledged the validity of these interests and that the president was entitled to a degree of executive privilege. This privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the interest of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted with the interests of the judicial branch in providing a full and fair trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all facts and relevant information. The justices asserted that the interests of the president must be balanced against the interests of the judicial branch when these interests conflict.

The justices reasoned that the judiciary’s interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed President Nixon’s interest in keeping the content of his tapes secret. One reason for this was that the only issue before the Court was whether the trial judge could privately inspect the tapes to determine whether they were essential to a fair trial. The justices further stated that there would be cases in which the president’s need for confidentiality would outweigh the interests of the judicial branch, such as when the secret communication involved “military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.”

So? That changes nothing.

You are still wrong.

 

[Intolerant]

.

 

[Intolerant]