Senate Impeachment Trial Friday 1/30
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
It's supposed to about summations. Naturally the Dims can't grasp that concept. They continue
to plod along whining about bombshells, new evidence, basically wanting things which are
inadmissible because it's business that should have been already concluded in their duties
within the House impeachment hearing responsibilities.
Get a clue Dims! We're past that. It's time for summations on what you decided to present
as your slam dunk case.
to plod along whining about bombshells, new evidence, basically wanting things which are
inadmissible because it's business that should have been already concluded in their duties
within the House impeachment hearing responsibilities.
Get a clue Dims! We're past that. It's time for summations on what you decided to present
as your slam dunk case.
Crying Wolf on Impeachment
Video: https://www.wsj.com/1f039a19-e2a4-4a89-b354-e82bec32993d
Opinion: Five Reasons Why Republicans Need to Move On, Without Witnesses
Potomac Watch: The whole impeachment affair was a series of major fouls. The best outcome is a speedy acquittal.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 30, 2020 6:58 pm ET
Crying Wolf on Impeachment
“The impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump is coming down to one big question: Will Democrats, by crying wolf, drown out the more legitimate Republican cry of foul? ‘Foul’ has served as the GOP’s most powerful and honest argument from the first days of these impeachment maneuverings,” Kimberly Strassel writes in The Wall Street Journal.
“Democrats broke every standard of due process, transparency and fairness in their House investigation, making a mockery of their constitutional duty.”
“They hid the identity of the original accuser, denying Republicans and the country the ability to judge his motives.”
“They held secret depositions, barring more than three-quarters of House members, as well as the press and the American public.”
“They called 18 witnesses, but blocked the president from calling any in his defense.”
“The White House legal team was excluded from the proceedings—prohibited from cross-examining witnesses, denied the ability to introduce any evidence that spoke to the central question of the president’s focus on Ukrainian corruption.”
The kicker: In the end, “Democrats approved two articles of impeachment that failed to identify a crime.”
Click here to read more.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/crying-...nion_lead_pos9
Video: https://www.wsj.com/1f039a19-e2a4-4a89-b354-e82bec32993d
Opinion: Five Reasons Why Republicans Need to Move On, Without Witnesses
Potomac Watch: The whole impeachment affair was a series of major fouls. The best outcome is a speedy acquittal.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 30, 2020 6:58 pm ET
Crying Wolf on Impeachment
“The impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump is coming down to one big question: Will Democrats, by crying wolf, drown out the more legitimate Republican cry of foul? ‘Foul’ has served as the GOP’s most powerful and honest argument from the first days of these impeachment maneuverings,” Kimberly Strassel writes in The Wall Street Journal.
“Democrats broke every standard of due process, transparency and fairness in their House investigation, making a mockery of their constitutional duty.”
“They hid the identity of the original accuser, denying Republicans and the country the ability to judge his motives.”
“They held secret depositions, barring more than three-quarters of House members, as well as the press and the American public.”
“They called 18 witnesses, but blocked the president from calling any in his defense.”
“The White House legal team was excluded from the proceedings—prohibited from cross-examining witnesses, denied the ability to introduce any evidence that spoke to the central question of the president’s focus on Ukrainian corruption.”
The kicker: In the end, “Democrats approved two articles of impeachment that failed to identify a crime.”
Click here to read more.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/crying-...nion_lead_pos9
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lools like the who's who of cuntism.......
Mason Michaels
Verified User
When all the smoke and mirrors bullshit,is over and done.
One fact remains,Trump is guilty and Republican Senators,sold out the Constitution,Country,and We the People.
RIP America 7/4/1776-1/31/2020
One fact remains,Trump is guilty and Republican Senators,sold out the Constitution,Country,and We the People.
RIP America 7/4/1776-1/31/2020
Biden argued against witnesses in 1999 impeachment trial memo
The comments from the then-senator are at odds with current Democratic arguments.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN and BURGESS EVERETT
01/30/2020 08:36 PM EST
Updated: 01/30/2020 11:54 PM EST
In January 1999, then-Sen. Joe Biden argued strongly against the need to depose additional witnesses or seek new evidence in a memo sent to fellow Democrats ahead of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Biden circulated the four-page document, titled “Arguments in Support of a Summary Impeachment Trial,” on Jan. 5, 1999. In his memo, obtained by POLITICO, Biden cited historical precedents from impeachment cases going back to the establishment of the Senate and asserted “The Senate need not hold a ‘full-blown’ trial.
“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” Biden wrote at the time.
The Delaware Democrat added later: “In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”
Along with his son Hunter, Biden has become a primary target for Republicans in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Biden is also a frontrunner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
Biden’s comments from 1999 are at odds with current Democratic talking points that additional witnesses must be called to get to the bottom of Trump’s actions in the Ukraine saga. Republicans, of course, now oppose witnesses in Trump’s trial and argued strongly for them in Clinton’s.
In 1999, Biden also said senators should take into account the impact drawing out the impeachment proceedings would have on the country.
“In light of the extensive record already compiled, it may be that the benefit of receiving additional evidence or live testimony is not great enough to outweigh the public costs (in terms of national prestige, faith in public institutions, etc.) of such a proceeding,” Biden said. “While a judge may not take such considerations into account, the Senate is uniquely competent to make such a balance.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730
The comments from the then-senator are at odds with current Democratic arguments.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN and BURGESS EVERETT
01/30/2020 08:36 PM EST
Updated: 01/30/2020 11:54 PM EST
In January 1999, then-Sen. Joe Biden argued strongly against the need to depose additional witnesses or seek new evidence in a memo sent to fellow Democrats ahead of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Biden circulated the four-page document, titled “Arguments in Support of a Summary Impeachment Trial,” on Jan. 5, 1999. In his memo, obtained by POLITICO, Biden cited historical precedents from impeachment cases going back to the establishment of the Senate and asserted “The Senate need not hold a ‘full-blown’ trial.
“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” Biden wrote at the time.
The Delaware Democrat added later: “In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”
Along with his son Hunter, Biden has become a primary target for Republicans in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Biden is also a frontrunner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
Biden’s comments from 1999 are at odds with current Democratic talking points that additional witnesses must be called to get to the bottom of Trump’s actions in the Ukraine saga. Republicans, of course, now oppose witnesses in Trump’s trial and argued strongly for them in Clinton’s.
In 1999, Biden also said senators should take into account the impact drawing out the impeachment proceedings would have on the country.
“In light of the extensive record already compiled, it may be that the benefit of receiving additional evidence or live testimony is not great enough to outweigh the public costs (in terms of national prestige, faith in public institutions, etc.) of such a proceeding,” Biden said. “While a judge may not take such considerations into account, the Senate is uniquely competent to make such a balance.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730
It's supposed to about summations. Naturally the Dims can't grasp that concept. They continue
to plod along whining about bombshells, new evidence, basically wanting things which are
inadmissible because it's business that should have been already concluded in their duties
within the House impeachment hearing responsibilities.
Get a clue Dims! We're past that. It's time for summations on what you decided to present
as your slam dunk case.
honestly theres really nothing stopping them from bringing up the same charges again and doing the proper work this time.
The House will be busy, there exists a whole array of questions regarding Trump's behavior, finances, and policies, if he were to win in November and the Democrats maintain the House Trump may be the only President ever impeached twice
Im sure you will impeach him 10x lol.
Why do you watch it, the conclusion is and always was a given, it is like betting on jai alai thinking it is a competive match
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
House liberals should have done a better jog of gathering their evidence and presenting it in the House.
If the elections turn out as I described, no one would be suprised, Trump gives them too much material. With no reelection ahead, plus GOP blanket approval on anything he does, he is pretty much free to do anything regardless of ethics or legality, and we all know he will
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
quit pissing your pants.
Not "pissing" anything, just giving the facts, which you offered zero proof they weren't legitimate, seems you are the one getting anxious
You have the class of a duck. As well as those members you reference. I have serious doubts about your mental stability.