That 2019 impeachment

[WEATHER53]

The Senate doesn't complete an impeachment. You mean the Senate didn't convict him and remove him from office. That doesn't change the fact that the House of Representatives impeached him, twice. Bill Clinton wasn't convicted or removed from the office either, but he too was Impeached by the House. Nothing the DOJ can do can reverse the impeachment votes. There is no Constitutional eraser that will ever take them away.

Just keep lying that your feeling is that since it got half way done then it got all the way done and completed.
Fantasy

 

[BlindBoo]

Well one body did impeach him but the other equal body did not so there was no completed impeachment as required and merely an attempt.

Only one chamber impeaches. Senators have no vote on impeachment. The process was completed by the Senate with the trial of the President. They are like the jury in the trial.

 

[Delldude]

What does the whistleblower have to do with the Trump defense?

Why did Schiff keep the political bias information from Trump's defense? Because this was all politically biased.

 

[yidnar]

We can only hope in 2027, your orange doofus is impeached and removed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats will live in shame forever if you are right. They tried a coup on an innocent president.

Impeachment is a Constitutional Process. Nor does it end with criminal liability. That would be left up to the Courts. The only coup we've seen was when Benedict Donald tried to fraudulently switch forged slates of electors into the Jan 6th count of the states certified EC votes. Wouldn't you like to see Jack Smith have his day in court to finish the case against Benedict Donald and his cohorts?

 

[Marener]

Why did Schiff keep the political bias information from Trump's defense? Because this was all politically biased.

Asked and answered. You just edited out the answer.

The bias of the whistleblower has nothing to do with the facts of the allegations, therefore it has nothing to do with any defense.

Why are you okay with the president telling Ukraine to investigate his political opponent?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why did Schiff keep the political bias information from Trump's defense? Because this was all politically biased.

Right, the fat rapist tried to extort an entire country for personal, political gain.

 

[BlindBoo]

All an impeachment means is a trial will happen. In this case one was held and Trump was not found guilty per provisions of law.

That's been the case in all impeachments. The decision was always based on provisions of politics, not the law. That's where you have an impartial judge and jury.

 

[Delldude]

The bias of the whistleblower has nothing to do with the facts of the allegations, therefore it has nothing to do with any defense.

It shows whether or not the source is politically motivated. 6th amendment doesn't apply here?

Why are you okay with the president telling Ukraine to investigate his political opponent?

You haven't a clue on who Ciaramella is do you?

 

[dudmuck]

Democrats will live in shame forever if you are right. They tried a coup on an innocent president.

Coup is a word used to describe illegal means to remove an incumbent. But in our case, we have Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the constitution, for the house. And then Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6-7 for the senate. This makes it a legal process.

The topic of this thread pertains to an abuse of power, which involved withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for political favor. This is why the impeachment process occurred.

 

[Marener]

It shows whether or not the source is politically motivated. 6th amendment doesn't apply here?

The whistleblower isn’t the source. Just someone who provided a tip that started the investigation.

The sources are the witnesses and documents that were a part of the investigation.

As far as the 6th amendment goes, it doesn’t seem to apply to this case since neither the prosecution or the defense has the right to call witnesses. The Republicans in the Senate made sure there were no witnesses to question during the trial.

You haven't a clue on who Ciaramella is do you?

He’s the embodiment of you’re delusional double standard.

 

[Delldude]

The whistleblower isn’t the source. Just someone who provided a tip that started the investigation.

The sources are the witnesses and documents that were a part of the investigation.

He was the source of the information.

The Republicans in the Senate made sure there were no witnesses to question during the trial.

Republicans argued the House hadn't proved their case, therefore, additional testimony wasn't needed. The dems proved that point.

Nice try.

 

[Marener]

He was the source of the information.


Republicans argued the House hadn't proved their case, therefore, additional testimony wasn't needed. The dems proved that point.

Nice try.

He wasn’t the source of information. As you said, and I agreed, the whistleblower had no first hand information or direct evidence.

Many of Trump’s closest advisors refused to testify. They were complicit in the cover up.

 

[Delldude]

He wasn’t the source of information.

Yes he was.

Many of Trump’s closest advisors refused to testify. They were complicit in the cover up.

There was no need for testimony in Senate. Dems screwed up in the House and knew it. The Senate trial is only about the evidence submitted in the impeachment phase, not introducing new evidence.

 

[Marener]

Yes he was.

Either he was a source, or he had nothing other than hearsay and second hand rumors. You. and have it both ways.

There was no need for testimony in Senate. Dems screwed up in the House and knew it. The Senate trial is only about the evidence submitted in the impeachment phase, not introducing new evidence.

Not sure how the House could have compelled testimony. I guess they should have arrested Mark Meadows and kept him in jail until he testified. You’re pretty extreme.

The Senate Republicans were part of the cover up too.

This is your essential argument. You’re mad the American people caught wind of Trump’s corrupt schemes.

That’s just kind of pathetic.

 

[Delldude]

Either he was a source, or he had nothing other than hearsay and second hand rumors. You. and have it both ways.

Not sure how the House could have compelled testimony. I guess they should have arrested Mark Meadows and kept him in jail until he testified. You’re pretty extreme.

The Senate Republicans were part of the cover up too.

This is your essential argument. You’re mad the American people caught wind of Trump’s corrupt schemes.

That’s just kind of pathetic.

None of your horseshit matters as this has all been referred to DOJ and will be investigated thoroughly.

LOL

 

[Delldude]

 

[Marener]

None of your horseshit matters as this has all been referred to DOJ and will be investigated thoroughly.

LOL

So you’re in favor of politically motivated investigations when it’s your side doing it.

This is an authoritarian administration, and an important part of that is to make sure that everyone in government is too scared to speak out.

That’s what you’re celebrating.

 

[Delldude]

So you’re in favor of politically motivated investigations when it’s your side doing it.

We got to this point from legal shenanigans by your party.

This is an authoritarian administration, and an important part of that is to make sure that everyone in government is too scared to speak out.

Is that why your party took anyone they could to court to show us what can happen if you don't play by their rules?

 

[Marener]

We got to this point from legal shenanigans by your party.

The shenanigans was Trump telling a foreign leader dependent upon us for his very existence to do him a favor and help his campaign.

This is utterly corrupt and you are very upset we heard about it.

So you want to make sure everyone in the government knows to keep their ******* mouths shut or Trump will destroy their lives.

Is that why your party took anyone they could to court to show us what can happen if you don't play by their rules?

Who are you talking about?