That's what the trial is for.......................................!
|
That's what the trial is for.......................................!
No it's not. The House is responsible for investigating allegations and determining if the evidence warrants a trial. The Senate is only responsible for evaluating the evidence the House has uncovered. That being the case, the dems are in for a long ride.
So are Moscow Mitch and repubs despite the spin. I don't think either side gets through this unscathed.
No one gets out of a fight unscathed Tal, but you know I think the ones who have been mauled the most are the demonrats, they have demonstrated how shallow they are and things have been uncovered they would rather not be known
Like what? That the private attorney for the dufus was also mucking about in Venezuela as well as the Ukraine and our government knew nothing about it? Or the majority leader Moscow Mitch was going around his own government cutting deals with Russian oligharchs? You say dems are shallow for breaking up and exposing the dufus and his sycophants scandalous corruption?
You ignore that Biden was interfering in legal process in another country just because Trump made it an issueQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The smoke must be getting to you clete if you believe a word the dufus says. That's not good.
I try to take abalanced view Tal and to use the current position where there is smoke there is fire and fire burns indiscriminately
You can't take a balance view with our dufus. Whether you fact check, or follow the money, you get a lying cheater. This whole impeachment deal is about his lying and cheating. It's all he knows and conservatives think that's okay.
I don't know of anyone better at lying and cheating than HC was. And the group now contending for the dem nomination is the biggest collection of incompetents I've ever seen. When Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders are serious considerations, then you know you're in trouble. So if you want to complain about Trump, then you need to nominate an "anti-Trump". Good luck with that one.
I certainly like your optimism in the face of the current fact that your elected choice is a crook of the worst kind and shall forever carry that label of being impeached in his first term. I know no matter what the evidence is against him his sycophants say it's not enough or is a lie, but don't all crooks say that? Nixon did for sure. That's okay, we haven't started presenting the case with the world watching as we move into a brand new decade and the court seems poised to rule on a few subpoenas, and we may have a few more witnesses to hear from, you know the ones that hide behind the dufus.
Seems if you had witnesses that would clear you or back up your side they would have been heard from by now but we shall see what happens. So you just keep hollering Hillary, and we will keep hollering dufus, and see who gets got!
Considering who did the impeaching, I would suggest he wear it as a badge of honor.Quote:
shall forever carry that label of being impeached in his first term.
Still waiting on those names.Quote:
. I know no matter what the evidence is against him
Thank goodness we do not operate by that gosh awful and warped view of justice. Of course you do have the Ukrainian PM and Foreign Minister both saying there was no quid pro quo. One of your beloved witnesses actually said that Trump had told him months ago there was no guid pro quo. But still, you do have all those witnesses saying they had first hand knowledge of criminal activ....No wait. You don't have those witnesses, do you? CASE DISMISSED!!Quote:
Seems if you had witnesses that would clear you or back up your side they would have been heard from by now
To be sure. The only thing to see in the future will be if there are any dem senators who will do the honorable thing and admit that there is not sufficient evidence to impeach a sitting president of the United States.Quote:
So you just keep hollering Hillary, and we will keep hollering dufus, and see who gets got!
The impeachment is a done deal. It will be forever part of his legacy.
To be sure. The only thing to see in the future will be if there are any dem senators who will do the honorable thing and admit that there is not sufficient evidence to impeach a sitting president of the United States. From JL.
That's not how it works. He was IMPEACHED. Now CONVICTING him, is another matter. Or NOT convicting him or anything in between. That's what trials are about. No president has ever been removed in our history...YET! Nixon resigned, Johnson not convicted, Clinton convicted but not removed. He lost his law license though.
Maybe the dufus won't be convicted but forced to wear a muzzle, have his twitter account closed, have his phone taken away, or some other thing but his impeachment sticks forever like I and WG have said.
That's true. The question concerns who should bear the shame, Trump or the House dems. You know what I think.Quote:
Maybe the dufus won't be convicted but forced to wear a muzzle, have his twitter account closed, have his phone taken away, or some other thing but his impeachment sticks forever like I and WG have said.
Shame? Impeached tRump bears the shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He bears no shame. The shame falls on the feckless House dems who had decided, only days after his election, to try and remove him through impeachment. It is not going to work, and could very well backfire on the dems as the American people watch this political circus proceed. It is purely political and has nothing to do with justice.
It has everything to do with his unlawful behavior as a president.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He stands accused but not convicted but the presumption of innocence doesn't apply when tried in the court of public opinion, there he is presumed guilty of any accusation and it seems it doesn't apply when political opinions supplant evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If you have evidence of that, then call the House dems immediately. They couldn't find any. As I've been saying, I'm waiting on the name(s).Quote:
It has everything to do with his unlawful behavior as a president.
Oh, they have witnesses but trump says they can't testify. Wonder why....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
probably because they know nothing but hearsay gossip at the watercooler isn't evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Or ...they know something that will convict him.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Take that suggestion into any court of law and see how far it gets you. "Your Honor, we know the defendant is guilty because of some things that some people who have not testified are possibly going to say." Good grief. Yet another appearance of the "We hate Trump" syndrome.Quote:
Oh, they have witnesses but trump says they can't testify.
"In a letter sent Monday to all 99 of his chamber colleagues, Schumer continued to outline his case for why they need specific documents and testimony from certain witnesses who were directed by the White House not to comply with the House's impeachment inquiry."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Until Pelosi transmits the impeachment articles to the Senate, a trial cannot begin.
She has said she'll transfer the articles once McConnell can assure a "fair trial" will take place by outlining the rules for witnesses before it commences."
https://www.newsweek.com/whats-next-...nesses-1478867
Show me where in the Constitution it gives the SOTH any authority to decide how an impeachment trial will precede in the Senate.Quote:
"Until Pelosi transmits the impeachment articles to the Senate, a trial cannot begin.
She has said she'll transfer the articles once McConnell can assure a "fair trial" will take place by outlining the rules for witnesses before it commences."
It's just dirty, stinkin politics. In the meantime, we spend borrowed money like drunken sailors. Pitiful.
Moscow Mitch is required by the Constitution to assure a fair trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Ah, you want an unfair trial! I get it!
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said last week that she was "disturbed" to hear McConnell say he would work in "total coordination" with the president’s defense team.
No, he's actually not. A trial, yes, but it is never said that it must be fair. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."Quote:
Moscow Mitch is required by the Constitution to assure a fair trial.
And if you are really concerned with fairness, which I'm not sure that you are, you would have already spoken up about the kangaroo court which went on in the House.
And again, show me where in the Constitution it gives the SOTH any authority to decide how an impeachment trial will precede in the Senate.
This is just all about a hatred of Trump. Dems were calling for his impeachment within weeks of his election for supposedly accepting help from Russia. When that fell on its face, they they went on to quid pro quo. When that fell on its face, they ended up with the nonsense they now have. It's pitiful.
pitiful it may be but it is politics. no one said it had to be fair, honest or even truthfulQuote:
It's pitiful.
Everybody in politics says it's fair and honest what they're doing. Let's not forget that in 2018 Americans voted enough repubs out and dems into the House to reduce the dufus and repubs power in our government. Fair or not, honest or not, the dufus was impeached, and it doesn't matter what repubs and his sycophants say about it, as they did the Mueller Report that went way above the publics head, but still laid out a roadmap of wrong doing that has lead to the dufus being impeached because he was too dumb to be grateful that he dodged a bullet, and kept engaging in unlawful acts mainly abuse of power with the Ukraine debacle, and obstructing the congress in it's oversight duties concerning that debacle.
He basically impeached himself since he had no answers for any of his actions that could pass the smell test. If you were holding your nose you missed all that, and made the huge mistake of listening to the lies of the dufus and his sycophants. So while the dufus does the Russian's business, which you righties ignore and dismiss, Moscow Mitch and the senate are put front and center of organizing a trail that looks fair, and honest.
Yeah it is all about the politics in this election year, and everybody is watching what happens next. What more could you ask for as we start a new decade! 8D
Still waiting on that name. Without that, you only have baseless accusations based on Trump hatred.
The testimony of 17 people saying basically the same thing is compelling enough in any court of law in the land. Always has been, always will be. Certainly enough to impeach and bring charges. You should have figured that out with all the charges the dufus faced before he became president.
Why are you so surprised that this pattern continues?
But that's your whole problem. You had seventeen people all saying, "I have no direct knowledge of any wrong-doing on the part of the president." Now guess what that will get you in any court of law. "Case dismissed!"Quote:
The testimony of 17 people saying basically the same thing is compelling enough in any court of law in the land.
That's why you cannot provide a single name of a witness who had first hand knowledge of anything significant. Now you did have both the PM and Foreign Minister of Ukraine saying there was no quid pro quo. You also had a witness saying that Trump directly told him the same thing. So yeah, you have no case to speak of. Trump Derangement Syndrome. That's why Pelosi seems so afraid to give the "case" to the Senate. She knows they have nothing. The American people know they have nothing. I know they have nothing, and I suspect you know the same thing.
That's not the way the law works anywhere dude. If 15 people say they thought they saw you J walking then the cops can ask you if you were. If the cops don't believe you, then they investigate, like find evidence or such. Well we have that evidence in the form of how the dufus conducted himself and I have cited he broke the Impound Acts law. He did not notify the congress of changes he made to an appropriation that HE signed into law. That's the abuse of power charge dude, plain and simple for you.
Not allowing the House to investigate, by testimony or documents is the obstruction of congress charge, plain and simple even for you loonies to understand. As we move to the TRIAL phase the senate will vote on the structure and rules of that trail no different than has been done before. It really is that simple JL no matter the gobble de goop you keep trying to throw at us that at this point is irrelevant.
Those names you wait for and evidence presented are the province of the senate trial now since the Impeach part has been DONE! You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and rhetoric, but it's the lawful process that goes forward without you, no matter what the outcome. The House never had to prove anything to bring charges, NO prosecutor ever does, as very different to charge than convict, and so we await the next steps in the process.
See how simple that is? Sorry if you can't wait to get those names and maybe you never will but obviously the law has moved past that point and the process continues. I know politics at play with both sides trying to make their points for the public and their own agendas.
Actually, that's how it works everywhere. Try getting on the witness stand and saying you THOUGHT you saw someone do something. Your testimony will be completely discredited. This has nothing to do with a cop asking you something, but if he did, guess what? You don't have to answer. You are not responsible to demonstrate your own guilt. You need to learn a few things about law.Quote:
That's not the way the law works anywhere dude. If 15 people say they thought they saw you J walking then the cops can ask you if you were.
Honestly Tal, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is the House's job to investigate. They can then present their evidence to the Senate who rules on it. The Senate is not there to investigate. We have gone through this for months and months. Millions of dollars have been spent. The money in contention was paid to Ukraine. Trump did the same thing Biden did and not one virtuous dem complained about that, so you just don't have a case. The problem is that dems hate Trump and are prepared to do anything to get him out of office. It's just stinkin politics.
There you go ignore facts again. The House has impeached and sets the stage for a trial where they present the evidence to the senate. We all know the senate has noting else to do but hear it, no investigations by them is needed. Done deal, so yes as a pretrial protocal the senators must agree on the rules by which the trial should be conducted on. That's where we are at.
What part of that is it you are not understanding?
Fair enough, but that's the core of my question. Give me the name of even one witness who has first hand knowledge of the president's guilt and we'll have something to talk about. You keep bringing up the non-witnesses and what you think they might know. You say the Senate has "nothing else to do but hear it," so that being the case, all they can hear is what the House has now. That's basically next to nothing.Quote:
There you go ignore facts again. The House has impeached and sets the stage for a trial where they present the evidence to the senate. We all know the senate has noting else to do but hear it, no investigations by them is needed. Done deal, so yes as a pretrial protocal the senators must agree on the rules by which the trial should be conducted on. That's where we are at.
That's where we disagree greatly in what has already been testified to and documented. While I must conceed easily the dufus has a right to his court hearings about his ability to keep people from testifying and even the documents he must produce, I do not conceed the congress has NO right to bring charges it has documented despite the dufus's tactics. I have already warned you that a few rulings in that regard are about to be announced sometimes this month, and the dufus has the right of appeal if he chooses to exercise it, further delaying any forthcoming order of the court, but the process is the process and the House has an obligation to do as they deem necessary.
The elections of 2018 has it's consequences, as do all elections. I respectfully submit the American people changed the balance of power in the House knowing full well dems were going to check the dufus as laid out by our constitution.
Well, I'm still waiting for that name. To me, when you cannot find a single witness who can say he witnessed or heard the Pres say or do something illegal, then I don't see how you have a case. It would not work in any court in America. Surely the pres should have the same justice accorded to him as other Americans have, even by those who hate him.
Here are three:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
Trump won't allow them to testify.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 PM. |