The Democrats witness dilemma

[floridafan]

You’ve already posted that the Senate will convict.

Saved.

Really? Prove it or STFU

[canceled.2021.2]

Anything is possible.

you think you have 20 Republican Senators?

I will give you the three standard republican traitors; Collins, Murkuntski and Pierre Delecto. Maybe Alexander that old fossilized fuck. But who else ya got?

[jimmymccready]

Just because your side is so partisan doesn't mean my side is. I believe in the system but when it comes to these articles of impeachment well put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.

That is a good description of the Trump partisans. The articles are solid, and the indictments that are waiting for Trump when he leaves office are even more so.

[Getin the ring]

That is a good description of the Trump partisans. The articles are solid, and the indictments that are waiting for Trump when he leaves office are even more so.

I feel so bad for those around you, mostly your family,

That you will harbor this hate inside you for 5 more years, and then cheer for the hacks to still chase trump even after he's served two terms and fixed the country

you're a tiny little troll, nothing more

[PostmodernProphet]

ONLY, because trump was caught by the whistleblower.

if he was caught doing something illegal the House should have presented some evidence of it.....

[Frank Apisa]

Different than the your rationalization about why Democrats wouldn’t wait on Bolton’s testimony before voting lol?

Huh??????????

Look, Frank, people aren’t idiots.

Ummm...rather a general statement. Some ARE, Darth. Trump, for instance, is.

It’s patently obvious democrats were in a hurry to impeach Trump for purely partisan purposes. They have to be blithering idiots to buy the crap ‘oh, but Trump might commit more crimes if we don’t hurry’.

It is patently obvious all politicians are willing to stretch the truth in order to further their objectives.

Trump on the other hand lies about damn near everything...for almost no reason other than that he is a liar.

Only to watch Pelosi put a halt to the whole process after the Democrats got their Trump impeachment.

Oh...you think she has halted?

Okay.

The hurry/not hurry bit is so easy to see through it’s pathetic. My ‘rationalization’ is that the Senate is by no means required to do what the House refused to do.

Okay...thanks for sharing that. Now I'm interested in why the Republican senators are against doing it. Hell...The Leader has assured them that he has done nothing wrong. So...only exculpatory evidence is out there...and no damaging evidence.

Right?

Which is call Bolton to testify. Or anyone else. If Democrats deemed the articles worthy of being passed, that implies they had all they needed and were ready for trial.

As I said...the Republican senators can make the Democrats look like goddam fools...by just bringing in people like John Bolton, Mick Mulveney, and Mike Duffy. They will all swear under oath that Trump is as pure as new-fallen snow.

Right?

Let’s have it.

Yup...let's have it.

[Eagle_Eye]

That is a good description of the Trump partisans. The articles are solid, and the indictments that are waiting for Trump when he leaves office are even more so.

One article may be valid and that is the phone call. The other one is total BS that any president could be impeached for it is so fucking vague.

[Earl]

Really? Prove it or STFU

floridafan posted:

“From now to the day Trump is convicted by the Senate you may continue to live in your own dream world of fantasy and lies. It don't mean sht to anyone.”

You can’t even remember your posts from an hour ago.

[jimmymccready]

jimmymccready
That is a good description of the Trump partisans. The articles are solid, and the indictments that are waiting for Trump when he leaves office are even more so.

I feel so bad for those around you, mostly your family,

That you will harbor this hate inside you for 5 more years, and then cheer for the hacks to still chase trump even after he's served two terms and fixed the country

you're a tiny little troll, nothing more

My family, some who vote Trump, love me dearly and would despise your one-headed no-depth trolling hate for others not like you.

Hate the crimes, love the criminal, and eventually Trump will come into the criminal system where he and his followers can get the help they need.

[jimmymccready]

One article may be valid and that is the phone call. The other one is total BS that any president could be impeached for it is so fucking vague.

As usual you have no idea about what you are writing. Trump WAS IMPEACHED. Happy IMPEACHMAS.

[Truth Detector]

It’s clear that Democrats need witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial since it’s a slam dunk acquittal based on the articles Nancy solemnly/gleefully sent over to the Senate.

Which begs the question if they should have been sent to begin with—but Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment*, so yeah.

I think Jonathan Turley answers that question best; great article to read in it's entirety:

When William Shakespeare wrote that “all the world is a stage” and “one man in his time plays many parts,” he could have probably had in mind Senator Charles Schumer. In 1999, the Democrat from New York famously opposed witnesses in the trial of President Clinton as nothing more than “political theater.” Now Schumer has declared that witnesses and a full trial are essential for President Trump, and that a trial without witnesses would be deemed the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.”

That does not include the Clinton case where Schumer sought to proceed to a summary vote without a trial. As the Senate now gears up for the third presidential impeachment in history, the fight has begun over the rules and scope of a trial. The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict a president. The only direct precedent on these issues is derived from two very different trials, those of President Johnson and Clinton.

By sending a thin record to the Senate, the House could not have made things easier for Trump. Since the House did not take time to subpoena critical witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could simply declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by the House, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming. Moreover, in reviewing the past trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making. Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment in Democratic style.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...eachment-trial

[Truth Detector]

That's not what the GAO just said.

[Truth Detector]

floridafan posted:

“From now to the day Trump is convicted by the Senate you may continue to live in your own dream world of fantasy and lies. It don't mean sht to anyone.”

You can’t even remember your posts from an hour ago.

The fool's seriously deranged.

[Eagle_Eye]

As usual you have no idea about what you are writing. Trump WAS IMPEACHED. Happy IMPEACHMAS.

And as usual your comprehension sucks. Trump has not been convicted in the Senate yet! Thus your vaunted impeachment is nothing more than a slap on the wrist and will remain so when if and when he is acquitted in the Senate.

[jimmymccready]

And as usual your comprehension sucks. Trump has not been convicted in the Senate yet! Thus your vaunted impeachment is nothing more than a slap on the wrist and will remain so when if and when he is acquitted in the Senate.

My expertise always trumps ha ha your enthusiasm. Trump will not be convicted in the GOP Senate, I agree, but he won't be found Innocent. The 'slap on the wrist' has cost him re-election. The material found will be used in the indictments when he steps down from office new January.