A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

[Ralph]

51 to 49

51/49 was a procedural vote on the floored motion to allow the Senate to accept NEW WITNESSES. There has never been an impeachment where NEW WITNESSES other than the witnesses introduced first in the house impeachment hearing. Name the precedent....anyone? Reality: 51/49 reads the same as 99/1. We are not tossing horse shoes or hand grenades.

Reality: when blow job was subject to a senatorial tribunal...there were NO NEW WITNESSES. Whose fault is it that a motion was not made to allow the 18 witnesses from the house inquiry to be questioned?

The left DID NOT even want those 18 witnesses to be cross examined by Trump's team of lawyers. I wonder why? Do you know how many witnesses the DEFENSE was allowed in this "fair hearing" in the basement of the house? What would make anyone assume that the majority in the senate would even consider allowing NEW TESTIMONY (discovery)?

Even in the senate....impeachment is nothing but a POLITICAL dog and pony show. The senate has always been the firewall. The left fell right into the procedural trap and exposed their lies and corruptness.

This impeachment was never about removing Trump it was nothing but an attempt to CYA...….cover the asses of the corrupt leeches on the left who have funneled millions of tax payer dollars into their personal bank accounts by laundering FOREIGN AID tax payer dollars through fake business transactions.

 

[PoliTalker]

It's amazing the levels of absurdity Republicans rise to.

Now, in this day and age, they are actually arguing that trials don't need witnesses.

Go figger.

 

[Flash]

It's amazing the levels of absurdity Republicans rise to.

Now, in this day and age, they are actually arguing that trials don't need witnesses.

Go figger.

But it is not unconstitutional if they don't have witnesses which Democrats are absurdly claiming.

Why didn't the House call additional witnesses if they had somebody they wanted to question?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

But it is not unconstitutional if they don't have witnesses which Democrats are absurdly claiming.

The letter of the law is one thing. The intent is another.

Why didn't the House call additional witnesses if they had somebody they wanted to question?

No reason they can't do that still. I hope they do. The House represents The People. The People wanted more witnesses. The House should do what The People want.

The People will have a chance to express their feelings come November. I hope they do. Especially when it comes to the presidential and Senate elections.

 

[Rune]

It's amazing the levels of absurdity Republicans rise to.

Now, in this day and age, they are actually arguing that trials don't need witnesses.

Go figger.

One way or another this was going to be a kangaroo court.
Let's see what the voters remember in November.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

One way or another this was going to be a kangaroo court.
Let's see what the voters remember in November.

nothing will change. the left will still vote left, the right will still vote right, and no matter who wins, we the people will still lose

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Rune,

One way or another this was going to be a kangaroo court.
Let's see what the voters remember in November.

As far as I am concerned ain't nobody gonna FORGET this travesty of justice.

The Trump cult has made a MOCKERY of presidential oversight.

This cannot go unanswered.

Our chance to speak up comes on November 3rd.

We gotta set this right.

Vote Blue No Matter Who

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Vote Blue No Matter Who

this is how we lose. vote blue, vote red, vote straight party, no matter who............because y'all have been brainwashed in to believing that the other party is sure to destroy our 'great country'.........................

 

[OG Yurt]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

That is absolutely false.

And it isn't a trial.

Why are you so stupid?

 

[Rune]

That is absolutely false.

And it isn't a trial.

Why are you so stupid?

Tried in the Senate. Fool

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

The letter of the law is one thing. The intent is another.

The intent (and letter) of the Constitution was to leave all the procedures for impeachment to the House and Senate.

No reason they can't do that still. I hope they do. The House represents The People. The People wanted more witnesses. The House should do what The People want.

Not according to Madison. That would be the same as majority rule which they fervently sought to prevent.

 

[Flash]

And it isn't a trial.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" [U. S. Constitution]

 

[Flash]

Nope. Impeachment of the President requires a crime. What crime?

If the president came to work drunk every day and did no work that would not be a crime. He couldn't be impeached?

 

[Walt]

If the president came to work drunk every day and did no work that would not be a crime. He couldn't be impeached?

Bad conduct in office, which drunken behavior would be considered part of, would be called a misdemeanor in the language of the time. That is an impeachable offense.

Abuse of power is definitely an impeachable offense under English Common Law. It would have been understood by the Founding Fathers to be such. The articles of impeachment would have been fine to the Founding Fathers.

 

[Flash]

Bad conduct in office, which drunken behavior would be considered part of, would be called a misdemeanor in the language of the time. That is an impeachable offense.

Abuse of power is definitely an impeachable offense under English Common Law. It would have been understood by the Founding Fathers to be such. The articles of impeachment would have been fine to the Founding Fathers.

But it is not a crime under criminal statutes as Into the Night says is necessary.

 

[Into the Night]

It's amazing the levels of absurdity Republicans rise to.

Now, in this day and age, they are actually arguing that trials don't need witnesses.

Go figger.

They don't.

 

[Into the Night]

But it is not unconstitutional if they don't have witnesses which Democrats are absurdly claiming.

Why didn't the House call additional witnesses if they had somebody they wanted to question?

They did...in Schiff's Kangaroo Kommittee...where no Republicans could cross examine them or even find out who they are.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Flash,



The letter of the law is one thing. The intent is another.



No reason they can't do that still. I hope they do. The House represents The People. The People wanted more witnesses. The House should do what The People want.

The People will have a chance to express their feelings come November. I hope they do. Especially when it comes to the presidential and Senate elections.

They will. I hope you have your post-election therapist lined up. They'll be a real shortage of them after November.

 

[Into the Night]

One way or another this was going to be a kangaroo court.
Let's see what the voters remember in November.

YOU don't get to declare the Senate trial 'invalid'. You are not the Senate.

 

[Flash]

They did...in Schiff's Kangaroo Kommittee...where no Republicans could cross examine them or even find out who they are.

But they wanted some in the Senate also. But even if they did not allow witnesses in the House it would still not be unconstitutional.