A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

Rune said:
Wipe Trump's jizz off your tung before addressing me please.

The trial did not occur in the House and is irrelevant you fucking moron.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about your dad's jizz dripping from your chin, faggot. We heard from witnesses and they provided no basis for a trial in the Senate. Hey faggot, why don't Democrats try Biden for treason for his quid pro quo?
 
Bobb said:
I didn't say anything about your dad's jizz dripping from your chin, faggot. We heard from witnesses and they provided no basis for a trial in the Senate. Hey faggot, why don't Democrats try Biden for treason for his quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

No I don't want you to lick my balls.
Go back to the Donald.
 
An impeachment without an impeachable offense is unconstitutional.

The fat lady sings day after tomorrow.
 
Rune said:
What a moron.
5 of six reviews were in favour.
:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Even with something as simple as this you have to lie. The best they could say is it's bland and only saved by slavering it with something else. The consensus on sucking dick was more positive ffs!
 
Havana Moon said:
Even with something as simple as this you have to lie. The best they could say is it's bland and only saved by slavering it with something else. The consensus on sucking dick was more positive ffs!
Click to expand...

So you agree about sucking dick?
I wouldn't know.
 
christiefan915 said:
See my post #158 and start thinking of a way to spin your lie that the House could have had Bolton. Every one of you clowns claimed that the people who testified before the trial started were liars or out to get trump. Sonland was lying, Vindman was lying, Yovanovitch was plotting against trump, ad nauseam. Your senators had the chance to put these so-called liars on the stand and grill them like cheeseburgers but they refused, and smart people know why.

My argument isn't that more witnesses are needed to "prove the case" because the case has already been proven. trump and his cohorts are lying, grifting cheats who will do anything to keep him and themselves in power. If trump had any evidence whatsoever that witnesses were lying he'd move heaven and earth to get their testimony on the record. In normal trials both sides have the chance to question witnesses but neither trump nor this trial was normal.

Stop putting your words in my mouth and start responding like a sentient being, not a trumper. The bottom line here is that your senators were and are afraid to have any more witnesses because what they already heard is damning and they can't risk it.
Click to expand...

"IF" these witnesses can PROVE the 2 articles of impeachment.....why...…..was there never a motion tabled to call the "house witnesses"?

Nadler and Shitforbrains….do not want the Presidents legal team to "cross examine" these (wink, wink) AIRTIGHT witnesses (The house refused to allow cross examination by the defense legal team....for a reason, they had only hearsay evidence, no facts). Shitforbrains certainly does not want witness No. 18 (IG Atkinson) cross examined UNDER OATH, that's why Shitforbrains refuses to even release the onesided transcript of Atkinson from the basement vault where he has tossed away the key......Atkinson's testimony proves that the HOUSE plotted and planned with the non-whistler blower...whistler blower.

Before Atkinson altered the form to include Hearsay, and then back dated it......the whistle blower would be considered nothing but a LEAKER of classified information. ;)

That's why they wanted NEW WITNESSES.....instead of using the witnesses they declared PROVED the 2 articles of impeachment to be valid. They knew they had no case for impeachment void of finding a crime to frame on Mr. Trump. Its not the senates job to provide DISCOVERY...that was the houses duty. The senate is like a jury....its duty is to HEAR the impeachable evidences the HOUSE PRODUCED. The time for discovery ended when Nancy pounded her gavel.

Go back to the BLOW JOB impeachment. No NEW WITNESSES were ever called......the witnesses that testified and were cross examined.....were witnesses already under subpoena by the house...or Ken Starr.

Truth: Unlike the democrats and their soviet basement style impeachment.....the republicans actually allowed Blow Job the right of self defense in calling his legal team to defend him in the house impeachment inquiry. All the witness called in the senate were NEVER NEW WITNESSES.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

Is Nadler a liar, a hypocrite or both in this video?

Jerry Nadler | We're Lowering the Standard of Impeachment
 
Ralph said:
"IF" these witnesses can PROVE the 2 articles of impeachment.....why...…..was there never a motion tabled to call the "house witnesses" Nadler and Shitforbrains….do not want the Presidents legal team to "cross examine" these (wink, wink) AIRTIGHT witnesses (The house refused to allow cross examination by the defense legal team....for a reason). Shitforbrains certainly does not want witness No. 18 (IG Atkinson) cross examined UNDER OATH, that's why Shitforbrains refuses to even release the onesided transcript of Atkinson from the basement vault where he has tossed away the key......Atkinson's testimony proves that the HOUSE plotted and planned with the non-whistler blower...whistler blower.

Before Atkinson altered the form to include Hearsay, and then back dated it......the whistle blower would considered nothing but a LEAKER of classified information. ;)

That's why they wanted NEW WITNESSES.....instead of using the witnesses they declared PROVED the 2 articles of impeachment to be valid. They new they had no case for impeachment void of finding a crime to frame on Mr. Trump.
Click to expand...

The House claimed information provided by the witnesses they called was overwhelming in showing guilt and the need for removal.

When it comes to a trial, by definition, it's a:

Merriam-Webster - "the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue"

Google.com - "a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings."

Other dictionaries say the same thing. Not one mention of the word "witness".
 
christiefan915 said:
The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

When that testimony was used during the impeachment hearings, it became witness testimony.

The House managers called what they used to claim evidence was overwhelming against Trump as witness testimony.
 
CFM said:
The House claimed information provided by the witnesses they called was overwhelming in showing guilt and the need for removal.

When it comes to a trial, by definition, it's a:

Merriam-Webster - "the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue"

Google.com - "a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings."

Other dictionaries say the same thing. Not one mention of the word "witness".
Click to expand...

Exactly: It would be up to the PROSECUTORS (the house team) to table a motion to allow the house witnesses to testify UNDER OATH, and of course be CROSS EXAMINED UNDER OATH. No jury (THE SENATE) is ever charged with finding and allowing NEW WITNESSES for the prosecutor. The senate is nothing but a JURY to examine and judge the houses discovery that proves or is insufficient to prove the 2 articles of impeachment. The day of discovery ended with the sound of Nancy's gavel.

The SCOTUS JUDGE? A figure head to make sure that the procedures that the senators voted on for the trial are upheld. Did you not notice how Roberts refused to be a tie breaking vote on anything other that procedural votes? It would be unconstitutional for a SCOTUS judge to cast a vote that leads to a verdict....as he represents another unelected branch of government. The Senate and Senate alone has the authority in relation to an impeachment tribunal. The house has no say, the house cannot demand NEW WITNESSES that went undiscovered in the house....the judge has no say on anything other than making sure the Senate Rules are upheld as per agreement in establishing the rules for a Senate Impeachment hearing.

A motion was tabled to allow the senate to do the job of the house......and call NEW WITNESSES, and that motion was defeated by a simple majority vote. GAME OVER. Time to go back to the house and attempt to find another FRAME UP.
 
Last edited:
Hello dukkha,

dukkha said:
Impeachment is sooo yesterday. Iowa and SOTU are this week
Impeachment does wrap up though it seems like it's DOA already
Click to expand...

Good luck putting that in the past.

But one thing will do it.

A second impeachment!

Trump could be the first to be impeached TWICE...
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.
Click to expand...

Irrelevance fallacy.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.
Click to expand...

All accounts? You mean the Democrats that considered Bolton unreliable and untrustworthy until he said something they liked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top