Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[jc456]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

Well yeah you do! Hey, thanks for playing

Told ya they wouldn't read or grasp what the post meant.

Thanks for proving my point.

I read your first sentence and that invalidated any further reading

 

[easyt65]

If no crime was needed to Impeach the President why did Democrats nother to hold Impeachment hearings in the House? Why not just hold the vote?

They fooled no one.
No crime, no evidence, no witness.

Criminal Obama administration agency members have been recommended for indictment, and more crime / scandal is exposed daily.

The Left has been trying to Impeach Trump before the election...r years later they are doing so while demanding no crime is necessary to do so
- Their own Constitutional expert testified Trump did not violate the Constitution, did not break the law, & did not abuse his power.

Pelosi violated her own requirements for Impeachment.

Schiff is a proven liar, guilty of Sedition, admitted to leaking classified, presented false evidence, and took money from a Russian-born arms dealer and crooked Ukrainians.

Nadler Censured the US AG for REFUSING to break the law....

Treason should still be punishable by hanging or a firing squad

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

 

[JLW]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

You obviously are completely lost as to what an impeachment proceeding is. A trial always has witnesses. Re-read the quote in my post then come back with something more intelligent.

 

[hunarcy]

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

Trump earned the screwing that the Democrats have given themselves?

 

[hunarcy]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

While you want to refer to English Common law, the wording of the Constitution is that " The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So, doesn't matter what happened to the officials of the crown. Thanks for playing.

 

[hunarcy]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

You obviously are completely lost as to what an impeachment proceeding is. A trial always has witnesses. Re-read the quote in my post then come back with something more intelligent.

It's not up to the jury to call witnesses in the trial. All that should have been done in the House and then submitted to the Senate, which is the jury. Sorry if your side didn't understand the rules.

 

[jc456]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

You obviously are completely lost as to what an impeachment proceeding is. A trial always has witnesses. Re-read the quote in my post then come back with something more intelligent.

Yep in the house. Not the senate

 

[jc456]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

You obviously are completely lost as to what an impeachment proceeding is. A trial always has witnesses. Re-read the quote in my post then come back with something more intelligent.

It's not up to the jury to call witnesses in the trial. All that should have been done in the House and then submitted to the Senate, which is the jury. Sorry if your side didn't understand the rules.

The dude should take a civic’s course

 

[Jitss617]

 

[Jitss617]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

If you don’t need a crime then wtf do you need more witnesses for?

You morons have gone from crimes so horrible we can’t wait to get him out of office to not needing any crimes. Pathetic losers.

You obviously are completely lost as to what an impeachment proceeding is. A trial always has witnesses. Re-read the quote in my post then come back with something more intelligent.

Yes you had witnesses they will read their depositions this week,, what’s the problem?

 

[skookerasbil]

A blast from the past that shows how corrupt republicans are today.

Lindsey Graham “YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME TO LOSE YOUR JOB"

Lol.....a vid from 50 years ago!!

Nobody cares s0n!

Skooks, they can’t name a crime! It’s spectacular.

They write diatribe posts and what is there? Blah, blah, orange man bad

JC....we'll get a few more days of fakery from the msm and after that we'll be spiking footballs well after the Super Bowl is over. Cant wait to make a bunch of posts in here...….been a member for 10 years and never thought anything would be better than the Kavanaugh train wreck. But this...…...THIS!!

 

[skookerasbil]

You don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:

’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm

You are correct......there is no crime needed to impeach. We already know that you dummy...…. because the House already impeached and it wasn't based upon a crime.

What almost all of the progressives I know still don't get is that this was supposed to be bipartisan. The framers knew that they couldn't give the power to throw a president out of office because the House didn't like a presidents national security policies, thus, they put the only meaningful level of power in the hands of the Senate.

Progressive bozo's can crow all they want about motive...…..but its not going to matter for dick in a few days.

Like I said earlier in this thread...…...still time to get some sticks of butter while you can!!. Don't wait too long...…..just sayin'

 

[rightwinger]

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

Trump earned the screwing that the Democrats have given themselves?

Doesn’t look that way

70 percent of the public thinks the phone call was inappropriate, 50 percent think he should be impeached for it

Let Trump run as an impeached President and let the voters decide if it is a big deal

 

[Jitss617]

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Schiff did a masterful job of detailing the evidence against Trump

Lol! You guys are screwed. And you did it to yourselves with your obsessive hatred. I hope you have learned a valuable lesson. When you hate, you are only hurting yourself.

Trump has earned it

Trump earned the screwing that the Democrats have given themselves?

Doesn’t look that way

70 percent of the public thinks the phone call was inappropriate, 50 percent think he should be impeached for it

Let Trump run as an impeached President and let the voters decide if it is a big deal

Give me the name of any person that runs any poll that you follow and I will find Twitter tweets of a trump do ranged lunatic lol

 

[task0778]

I don't see what's so hard to understand, the democrats held an inquiry which included witnesses, right? They voted to impeach Trump based on the information and testimony they found, right? So, they passed their Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, which include everything they based they vote on, right? Then the Senate hears the arguments on both sides and asks their questions and get answers, right? After all that, if 51 or more of the senators don't think they have enough information, then they'll vote to call witnesses and the trial continues until the senators have heard enough. But if they already have enough information to determine whether or not to vote for removal, then there's no point in taking up any more time, and they'll have their vote for removal from office.

Look, the case that was voted on in the House is already supposed to be a complete case that warrants impeachment on it's own merits without further witnesses or information. Otherwise, they shouldn't have voted to impeach Trump until they did have a complete case with 'overwhelming evidence'. It's an impeachment after all, they voted to overturn the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 election, according to our laws. So IMHO, they shouldn't be bitching about more witnesses and more documents, I don't think the democrats have any standing to ***** if the Senate decides they've heard enough already. IMHO, I don't think in this case they'll need to hear from any new witnesses. And besides, they said it themselves, they can always impeach Trump a 2nd time if they get new information.

 

[skookerasbil]

I don't see what's so hard to understand, the democrats held an inquiry which included witnesses, right? They voted to impeach Trump based on the information and testimony they found, right? So, they passed their Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, which include everything they based they vote on, right? Then the Senate hears the arguments on both sides and asks their questions and get answers, right? After all that, if 51 or more of the senators don't think they have enough information, then they'll vote to call witnesses and the trial continues until the senators have heard enough. But if they already have enough information to determine whether or not to vote for removal, then there's no point in taking up any more time, and they'll have their vote for removal from office.

Look, the case that was voted on in the House is already supposed to be a complete case that warrants impeachment on it's own merits without further witnesses or information. Otherwise, they shouldn't have voted to impeach Trump until they did have a complete case with 'overwhelming evidence'. It's an impeachment after all, they voted to overturn the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 election, according to our laws. So IMHO, they shouldn't be bitching about more witnesses and more documents, I don't think the democrats have any standing to ***** if the Senate decides they've heard enough already. IMHO, I don't think in this case they'll need to hear from any new witnesses. And besides, they said it themselves, they can always impeach Trump a 2nd time if they get new information.

Correct......100% in fact. Which is why there will be no witnesses in the Senate trial. Let them go back and try again.....its a no-brainer for Senate Republicans supposedly on the fence to state this, and state it they will. Watch......by next weekend, progressives will be doing burnouts down the street to the grocery store to buy up the last of the Land O Lakes butter.

Land O Lakes® Salted Land O Lakes Salted Butter

 

[WEATHER53]

Democrats can’t offer evidence nor facts so they need to demand that Conservatives do their job for them or they will shriek “not fair”. Infants in power is a scary thing.

 

[skye]

With this hoax,the DemoRats are self-destroying themselves.....they don't care, their hatred will be their downfall.

 

[B. Kidd]

For Trump to be right means that all future presidents are above the law and impeachment is forever negated as a congressional power. We are being set up to accept the death of righteousness in government.

"Righteousness in Government".

Now that's a phrase to ponder. ack-1