Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Ken Mac]

There is more than enough precedent to follow.

You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.

The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

The Executive Branch has no standing in the process the House uses to initiate impeachment proceeding and the argument lacks merit. Witnesses can choose to plead the 5th and the Executive can claim privileged over specific answers and documents.

Subpoenas must be valid. They were challenged as being invalid due to the fact Nazi Pelousy didn't hold the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings prior to them being issued.

You really are thick.

There is no such requirement in the Constitution regarding impeachment.

There is more than enough precedent to follow. Nance used the Judicial committee because they had very few rules for subpoenas. The oversight committee is the proper committee for an impeachment inquiry. They have "OVERSIGHT" of the executive branch. That is their sole job. Why don't you go out and do some more reading. Nancy subverted previous precedent and used the wrong committee because she didn't want to deal with courts and hurry the process along. WTFU.

The precedent use to be the full House had to vote to authorize any committee, including an impeachment inquiry, to have subpoena power. That precedent was changed in 2015, by Republicans wanting to fast track the continuing investigations into Obama. There is no specific committee that the Constitution delegate the Impeachment authority to. The Constitution gives the House the Sole Power or Impeachment.

That is correct. But each committee establishes it's own requirements for subpoenas. The rules for subpoenas on the Oversight committee are more limited in power than the Judiciary Committee. This is Nancy's subversion. She used the wrong committee cuz she wanted full subpoena power.

Please read again, you seem to not be picking up what I'm putting down.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

Run Forestttttt

LOL

You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.

(smile) I used it to force your hand kid. You simply aren't up to yhis.

 

[Faun]

Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

presumption of innocence

Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.

It shows it's a legal construct.

 

[Faun]

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

Run Forestttttt

LOL

You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.

(smile) I used it to force your hand kid. You simply aren't up to yhis.

LOL

Sure, gump.

 

[Ken Mac]

yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.

That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.

YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 ******* hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the ******* dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their ******* job.

 

[BlindBoo]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

 

[Nostra]

The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.

The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.

Oops!

They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.

The didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.

LOL

I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....

Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.

How does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Hint: It doesn't.

LOLOL

They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.

No court ruled they were valid, Fuckwit.

You lost, Loser. Deal with it.

 

[Nostra]

yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.

That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.

YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

No witnesses were called, dumbfuck. First time in U.S. history.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

 

[JustAGuy1]

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

presumption of innocence

Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.

It shows it's a legal construct.

Do you find that deflection works for you?
It won't work me. You got caught lying son

 

[Nostra]

yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.

That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.

YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

Your meltdown if ******* hilarious.

Hey fuckwit, that lie won't fly. Get a new one.

 

[Meister]

Eastlan v. United States Servicemen's Fund

Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses.

Faun, Please keep up. My point was that Trump's counsel was challenging the validity. It is up to the court to decide. Somewhere in that document (which I've read) the full committee has to sign off on the subpoenas and only the three chairpersons signed off on it. That makes it invalid. The dems needed to challenge it and the didn't cuz they wanted to hurry up and get him out before the election. After wouldn't do them any good. Don't be fooled by the BS.

Please cite the court case Trump filed to fight the subpoenas issued during the House inquiry...

The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.

The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.

Oops!

They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.

They withdrew their subpoena on Bolten, also.

 

[JustAGuy1]

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

Run Forestttttt

LOL

You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.

(smile) I used it to force your hand kid. You simply aren't up to yhis.

LOL

Sure, gump.

LOL. You hate being exposed eh son?

 

[Nostra]

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

"b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not."

Prove this little man

presumption of innocence

Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.

It shows it's a legal construct.

So you are back to "you are guilty until you prove you are innocent" in impeachment trials.

Sure is hard to keep up with your flip-flops.

 

[Faun]

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 ******* hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the ******* dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their ******* job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

 

[bripat9643]

Suck it, Dimwingers. Your clusterfuck has blown up in your faces.

Now it's over, and you are losers.

O.J. Simpson approves your message.

What is that supposed to mean, that anyone who is acquitted is actually guilty?

Do you understand how much of a douchebag you are?

O.J. Simpson also approved YOUR message.

Thanks for confirming that you're a douchebag.

 

[Faun]

They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.

The didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.

LOL

I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....

Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.

How does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Hint: It doesn't.

LOLOL

They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.

No court ruled they were valid, Fuckwit.

You lost, Loser. Deal with it.

The Supreme Court had already done that years ago, dumbfuck. Try and keep up, will ya?

 

[Meister]

When it comes right down to it, the republicans in the senate are a bunch of pussies.
Sen. Sherrod Brown: In private, Republicans admit they acquitted Trump out of fear

You do know that Sharrod Brown is a democrat, right? Hell, Schiff may as well of said that....oh wait.......

 

[Faun]

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

No witnesses were called, dumbfuck. First time in U.S. history.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.

 

[Nostra]

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 ******* hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the ******* dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their ******* job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a ******* idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

 

[Ken Mac]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.