Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[Auld Phart]

I don't know how the vote on witnesses will go, but if we thought there was a tirade in 2016, watch the next votes. Will our country survive?

our democracy is in the balance

You’re right. Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president? There is a lot at stake.

I'm sure they will be as non-partisan as the House was.

LOL... you get the award for the most clever post of the evening.

Do you have any doubt that the House Managers, and majority of Democrats, will claim partisanship when the president is acquitted? (likely tomorrow)

 

[JLW]

I don't know how the vote on witnesses will go, but if we thought there was a tirade in 2016, watch the next votes. Will our country survive?

our democracy is in the balance

You’re right. Will the Senate stand up for the rule of law or give carte blanche to a rogue and criminal president? There is a lot at stake.

I'm sure they will be as non-partisan as the House was.

LOL... you get the award for the most clever post of the evening.

Do you have any doubt that the House Managers, and majority of Democrats, will claim partisanship when the president is acquitted? (likely tomorrow)

No doubt. You’re right. Your initial post was clever because there was no way I could answer it.

 

[The Original Tree]

Dem’s are seriously Bipolar!

“Democracy is at Stake!

It’s urgent!

Sits on Articles for33 days!

Please don’t make us run against Trump in the next election

Can’t you take him off the ballot?“

 

[Zorro!]

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 senate has not voted yet and lib anti trumpers are making excuses already

Yup. There is nothing conceivably improper in the Trump campaign’s calling attention to the Bidens’ record of self-dealing – of the likelihood that the former vice president’s son Hunter, and perhaps other Biden family members, profited on Joe Biden’s political influence. There is, moreover, no problem whatsoever with the Trump campaign’s pointing out that

(a) Hunter Biden took a lucrative board position with a corrupt foreign company in a sector (energy) in which he had no experience, facts that powerfully suggest influence peddling; and
(b) Vice President Biden knowingly operated under a blatant conflict-of-interest in playing point-man on Obama administration Ukraine policy — such that he may have been corruptly influenced, and even if he was not, he created the appearance of impropriety that government officials are supposed to avoid. (And Ukraine may not be the only country in connection with which Biden created this unsavory appearance.)​

All of that is fair game. Campaign arguments could properly be made about it, wholly apart from whether the current Ukrainian regime took any investigative action.

Democrats, however, allege that the dispositive fact is that the Ukrainian government — as opposed to, say, the American media — might have opened a corruption investigation at Trump’s behest. What plausible evidence is there that this would have had any real impact on the 2020 election?

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

 

[The Original Tree]

Schiff:

“People risked their lives to fight England so they can choose their own leaders.

Please remove Trump so The People cannot choose him as their leader.”

 

[Zorro!]

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.

It's neither rigged nor cowed. The idea that US voters could care less who Ukraine decides to investigate or not investigate for violations of Ukraine Law is laughable.

Ukraine is a notoriously, pervasively corrupt country. What it may be most infamous for is the exploitation of its criminal-justice processes, by whatever party is in power, as a weapon against political rivals, and to curry favor with Russia or the West, depending on what seems expedient to the incumbent rulers. Indeed, the Mueller probe reconfirmed that Ukrainian regimes serially and corruptly investigate their political adversaries. In a flash, Paul Manafort went from high-level adviser to one Ukrainian regime to criminal suspect of the next Ukrainian regime.

The Ukrainian justice system has no credibility. Even the House managers’ investigation acknowledged that corruption is endemic in the prosecutorial ministry. So why would anyone in America care whether Ukraine was investigating the Bidens for potential violations of Ukrainian law?

No sensible American cares what the Ukrainian government does. Foreign governments and actors constantly claim that American officials are guilty of war crimes, corruption, fraud, meddling, etc. It comes with the territory of being a high-level representative of the United States government. Presumably, moreover, Vice President Biden would have had immunity from any claimed violation of Ukrainian law based on his official acts. An investigation would have been pointless as well as irrelevant.

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

Crazy Nancy's, Bug-eyed Schiff's and Ft Jerry's claims never made a lick of sense. They impeached on an unconvincing pretext after 3 years of Russian Collusion lies completely and utterly failed.

 

[Zorro!]

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 senate has not voted yet and lib anti trumpers are making excuses already

You do know what the word “if” means, don’t you?

Everyone has always known that The House impeached on the thinnest of pretexts, of course it's blowing up in your faces.

It's always been silly and unconvincing to suggest that a Ukrainian investigation of Joe Biden would have influenced the U.S. election. Democrats concocted a Ukraine straw-man to impede Republicans and the Trump campaign from making perfectly reasonable campaign arguments about Biden corruption.

What is the evidence that President Trump is actively corrupting the 2020 election?

Democrats claim that the sovereign, the American people, should not be permitted to decide President Trump’s fate for themselves in the November election, just a few months away. The political class must preempt a democratic election, Democrats say, because the president, right this minute, is actively plotting with foreign powers to undermine the election.

What is the evidence of that?

The Democrats have not presented a shred of evidence that the president has threatened the U.S. voting process. They have not even alleged — much less provided a sliver of proof — that the president has asked any regime to take action that could conceivably corruptly influence the U.S election in the slightest way. And, as we’ve just seen, A Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens — which was never commenced — would have had no impact on the U.S. election.

The Democratic House impeachment managers nevertheless proclaim, as if it were established fact, that the president is actively undermining the November election. It is the central assumption of their case, the rationale for insisting that president must be removed from office immediately. Where, in the hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of testimony, is there any proof — any evidence at all — that President Trump is presently working with any foreign government to corruptly influence the outcome of the 2020 election?

We don’t impeach and remove American presidents on supposition and surmise. What is the hard evidence?

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

 

[The Original Tree]

You know how I know they have zero evidence?

They never really answer the questions, manufacture fictional testimony, and repeat themselves with their assumptions, mind readings and suppositions.

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 senate has not voted yet and lib anti trumpers are making excuses already

You do know what the word “if” means, don’t you?

Everyone has always known that The House impeached on the thinnest of pretexts, of course it's blowing up in your faces.

It's always been silly and unconvincing to suggest that a Ukrainian investigation of Joe Biden would have influenced the U.S. election. Democrats concocted a Ukraine straw-man to impede Republicans and the Trump campaign from making perfectly reasonable campaign arguments about Biden corruption.

What is the evidence that President Trump is actively corrupting the 2020 election?

Democrats claim that the sovereign, the American people, should not be permitted to decide President Trump’s fate for themselves in the November election, just a few months away. The political class must preempt a democratic election, Democrats say, because the president, right this minute, is actively plotting with foreign powers to undermine the election.

What is the evidence of that?

The Democrats have not presented a shred of evidence that the president has threatened the U.S. voting process. They have not even alleged — much less provided a sliver of proof — that the president has asked any regime to take action that could conceivably corruptly influence the U.S election in the slightest way. And, as we’ve just seen, A Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens — which was never commenced — would have had no impact on the U.S. election.

The Democratic House impeachment managers nevertheless proclaim, as if it were established fact, that the president is actively undermining the November election. It is the central assumption of their case, the rationale for insisting that president must be removed from office immediately. Where, in the hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of testimony, is there any proof — any evidence at all — that President Trump is presently working with any foreign government to corruptly influence the outcome of the 2020 election?

We don’t impeach and remove American presidents on supposition and surmise. What is the hard evidence?

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Not so much. Why does the House get to dictate what the Senate does? They got to control the entire impeachment process in the house. Now, The House voted to impeach based on the 17 witnesses testimony. They tried to push it through before the end of the year and Christmas because they kept saying Trump is such a national security threat, they didnt have time to take it to the court, so now they want to bring in new evidence?
The job of the Senate is now to rule on all the perfect evidence the House gathered during their impeachment. They are the ones who set the timeline, if they wanted more witnesses then they should NOT have pushed it through. They have nothing to ***** about except that they like to *****.

Trump is right not to trust them and there is no need to play their game

Bug-eyed Schiff claims they have "proven" every element necessary for conviction, so what do they need more witnesses for?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Not so much. Why does the House get to dictate what the Senate does? They got to control the entire impeachment process in the house. Now, The House voted to impeach based on the 17 witnesses testimony. They tried to push it through before the end of the year and Christmas because they kept saying Trump is such a national security threat, they didnt have time to take it to the court, so now they want to bring in new evidence?
The job of the Senate is now to rule on all the perfect evidence the House gathered during their impeachment. They are the ones who set the timeline, if they wanted more witnesses then they should NOT have pushed it through. They have nothing to ***** about except that they like to *****.

Trump is right not to trust them and there is no need to play their game

You have it wrong. The question is will the Senate renege on it’s constitutional obligation to hold a fair trial or will they allow a trial to go forward with witnesses and hold true to it’s constitutional duty.

If they need witnesses in order to reach a decision, they will call them. you Lefties just hate the idea that anyone else can make a free choice.

The Nation tires of these hysterical control freaks.

IMPEACHMENT IN A NUTSHELL.

 

[Zorro!]

Heh.

 

[Jackson]

LAMAR Alexander is a no! No witnesses! Yeah!

 

[Jackson]

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TAKING THE VOTE NOW!!! THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER! DEMS ARE DONE!

 

[Zorro!]

LAMAR Alexander is a no! No witnesses! Yeah!

The Walls Are Closing In!

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TAKING THE VOTE NOW!!! THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER! DEMS ARE DONE!

Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment.

Maybe Bug-eyed Schiff will get a spot on Dancing With The Stars​

Shame on Bug-eyed Schiff. He just made up another conversation, this time between Putin and Trump, again fact-free mental construct, all pulled from his imagination. Trump's legal team calls out Bug-eyed Schiff on his Puritanical Rage where everyone else has impure motives, but Schiff cannot even be questioned.

1. Trump Didn’t Commit An Impeachable Offense

2. Terrible Decision-Making By House Democrats

3. Democrats Failed to Get a Single Republican on Board Their Impeachment Scheme

4. Inexplicable 1-Month Delay In Sending Impeachment to the Senate

5. The Defense Team Was Amazing

6. Grating and Juvenile House Managers

7. Kavanaugh Smear Operations No Longer Work

8. Media Malfeasance

The media always owned this impeachment process. Pelosi did her best to avoid impeachment but the media all but forced her into it. They championed it every step of the way and provided help, including the blocking of arguments against it.

For instance, although it’s fairly standard to name whistleblowers and to do journalism figuring out who key players are, many in the media decided to help Democrats keep from having to answer questions about his role with the whistleblower. They steadfastly avoided looking into him and his motivations or how that might have affected the entire proceedings.

Each day provided evidence that the media didn’t just want Trump impeached and removed from office, but desperately wanted that. There are videos of scrums of reporters fighting with Republicans over their case, but none of them fighting with Democrats. Republican senators are hounded by reporters to pressure them to change their vote, but Democratic senators don’t receive the same treatment.

It didn’t help that in the midst of the circus, a CNN host and his panel were openly yukking it up about how Republicans are all stupid.

 

[Rye Catcher]

True, and there may be consequences in doing so.

Hypothetical Scenario: A challenge to the Senate Rule of 51 votes overruling the CJ can be sued in the Dist. Court of DC, and could quickly rise to the Supreme Court. The CJ would rightly recuse himself, and the possibility that the Justices would vote to overrule the 51 vote rule and it should that 2/3 + 1 would be necessary to avoid partisan controversy.

The Senate makes their rules, not the Supreme Court.

Yep. And I believe McConnell's abuse of the rules are examples of Malfeasance.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

It has become a pattern used by Moscow Mitch and his use of misfeasance in bringing bills passed by the House for debate and a vote, and in not putting forth for an up or down vote to Obama's nomination for the supreme court. It is dishonest and wrong.

a misfeasance is the act of performing a legal action, but in an improper way; Moscow Mitch has no integrity.

List the rules he violated, and exactly how he violated them.

Yes Virginia, there really are stupid questions. Had the author of this ^^^ stupid question read the definitions above, s/he might have understood the post; also, I left out Non feasance which is also in play with Moscow Mitch's behavior, s/he might understand the wrongful doing of Moscow Mitch the presidents b***h.

Look at you you tough guy message boarder! Eewwww I’m spit laughing at you.

Can you say acquittal?

Sure, I've seen other assholes like trump walk away. It happens. He won't be exonerated, and will be known as the third president to be impeached. Furthermore, history will not be kind to him.

 

[BS Filter]

The Senate makes their rules, not the Supreme Court.

Yep. And I believe McConnell's abuse of the rules are examples of Malfeasance.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

It has become a pattern used by Moscow Mitch and his use of misfeasance in bringing bills passed by the House for debate and a vote, and in not putting forth for an up or down vote to Obama's nomination for the supreme court. It is dishonest and wrong.

a misfeasance is the act of performing a legal action, but in an improper way; Moscow Mitch has no integrity.

List the rules he violated, and exactly how he violated them.

Yes Virginia, there really are stupid questions. Had the author of this ^^^ stupid question read the definitions above, s/he might have understood the post; also, I left out Non feasance which is also in play with Moscow Mitch's behavior, s/he might understand the wrongful doing of Moscow Mitch the presidents b***h.

Look at you you tough guy message boarder! Eewwww I’m spit laughing at you.

Can you say acquittal?

Sure, I've seen other assholes like trump walk away. It happens. He won't be exonerated, and will be known as the third president to be impeached. Furthermore, history will not be kind to him.

He will be acquitted. Impeached simply means accused. Your personal psychosis isn't a credible historical analysis.

 

[Zorro!]

The Senate makes their rules, not the Supreme Court.

Yep. And I believe McConnell's abuse of the rules are examples of Malfeasance.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

It has become a pattern used by Moscow Mitch and his use of misfeasance in bringing bills passed by the House for debate and a vote, and in not putting forth for an up or down vote to Obama's nomination for the supreme court. It is dishonest and wrong.

a misfeasance is the act of performing a legal action, but in an improper way; Moscow Mitch has no integrity.

List the rules he violated, and exactly how he violated them.

Yes Virginia, there really are stupid questions. Had the author of this ^^^ stupid question read the definitions above, s/he might have understood the post; also, I left out Non feasance which is also in play with Moscow Mitch's behavior, s/he might understand the wrongful doing of Moscow Mitch the presidents b***h.

Look at you you tough guy message boarder! Eewwww I’m spit laughing at you.

Can you say acquittal?

Sure, I've seen other assholes like trump walk away. It happens. He won't be exonerated, and will be known as the third president to be impeached. Furthermore, history will not be kind to him.

On exoneration, impeachment articles fail. Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry will always be know as those that failed with their faked up impeachment farce. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate Vote to fully exonerate will be BIPARTISAN, just like the House vote NOT to impeach was also BIPARTISAN

 

[Zorro!]

LAMAR Alexander is a no! No witnesses! Yeah!

The Walls Are Closing In!

 

[toobfreak]

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 senate has not voted yet and lib anti trumpers are making excuses already

Yup. There is nothing conceivably improper in the Trump campaign’s calling attention to the Bidens’ record of self-dealing – of the likelihood that the former vice president’s son Hunter, and perhaps other Biden family members, profited on Joe Biden’s political influence. There is, moreover, no problem whatsoever with the Trump campaign’s pointing out that

(a) Hunter Biden took a lucrative board position with a corrupt foreign company in a sector (energy) in which he had no experience, facts that powerfully suggest influence peddling; and
(b) Vice President Biden knowingly operated under a blatant conflict-of-interest in playing point-man on Obama administration Ukraine policy — such that he may have been corruptly influenced, and even if he was not, he created the appearance of impropriety that government officials are supposed to avoid. (And Ukraine may not be the only country in connection with which Biden created this unsavory appearance.)​

All of that is fair game. Campaign arguments could properly be made about it, wholly apart from whether the current Ukrainian regime took any investigative action.

Democrats, however, allege that the dispositive fact is that the Ukrainian government — as opposed to, say, the American media — might have opened a corruption investigation at Trump’s behest. What plausible evidence is there that this would have had any real impact on the 2020 election?

Donald Trump Impeachment Trial: Questions for Both Sides | National Review

Coming to a Senate Floor Near You Soon . . .