A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

Stretch said:
It's the sole job of the House to hold impeachment hearings. They did some in secret and some public. They refused to allow the Senate (the defense) to present witnesses.
They ended it all by saying they had a slam dunk case to present to the Senate. The House' findings and witness quotes, audio & visual were presented to the Senate.
We've told the improperly prepared charges to pound sand.

Again...it's the sole responsibility of the House present the impeachment charges. It's the sole responsibility of the Senate to charge or dismiss or acquit after hearing
the House' evidence. They're choosing to acquit. It's done. Get over it. Move on with the Dims and the media to your newest conspiracies.
Click to expand...

Google the words "House-led investigation." The Senate had nothing to do with this inquiry. And it's a bald-faced lie to claim the House refused to allow trump's side to present witnesses. The truth is that trump commanded his people to defy subpoenas and not to appear before the House. "The White House said Tuesday that it will not cooperate with House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, ratcheting up tensions between the legislative and executive branches amid an outcry from Democrats that the Trump administration is stonewalling their investigations."

Furthermore:

White House counsel Cipollone falsely suggested that Republicans weren’t given the same access as Democrats to the closed-door depositions in the fall led by the House intelligence committee. Cipollone was referring to the closed-door interviews conducted in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a secure room used to discuss or view classified and sensitive material. But both Democrats and Republicans on the committees leading the impeachment inquiry in the House had access to the SCIF.

Transcripts of the closed-door proceedings, which were held before public hearings began on Nov. 13, show Republican committee members asking questions of the witnesses. For instance, the Oct. 17 closed-door testimony of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was later publicly released, and it shows several Republican lawmakers were present, including the ranking minority members of the intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees: Republican Reps. Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul. They all asked questions of Sondland, the transcript shows. The House intelligence committee Democratic and Republican lawyers — Daniel Goldman and Steve Castor — also were present and questioned Sondland."

I guess it's not enough for you guys that trump will get an acquittal; you still have to lie through your teeth about how everything unfolded.

I'll "get over it" when that lying, grifting orange abomination is out of office, one way or another.
 
Teflon Don said:
They can’t make up their minds

One minute impeachment isn’t a trial. Then it is

One minute their case is OVERWHELMING and Trump admitted guilt with his transcript. Then their case can’t stand on its own and ONLY Bolton can prove what they accuse Trump of

It is astounding to watch
Click to expand...

total cognitive dissonance and doublethink. It's 100% Orwellian. They are perfect brainwashed sheep
 
Rune said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're right, Douchebag Donald should have been able to confront his accuser in court.
 
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.
Click to expand...

yes, they could have had bolton, you retard. I continue to reiterate that point. The things they wanted him to speak to are perhaps covered under executive privledge. When oyu have a dispute between two different branches of government, the court resolves these issues. The democrats could have gone to court and forced bolton to testify. They chose not to do this, because they wanted to rush impeachment. Except then after rushing impeachment they then decided to sit on it for another month. So you are wrong, 100%. Democrats could have gotten bolton to testify, but they did not pursue it. That is 100% on the democrats. You are wrong.
 
Schiff is such a liar = "shifty schiff" -he STILL would not release the transcripts from the IC IG testimony
The Weasel lies about not contacting the WB, about the fake phone call he read into the Congressional record -and hides it all but not releasing the IC IG testimony.

Shifty Schiff -what a weasel!
 
christiefan915 said:
Lol. Those people were not witnesses at the trial.
Click to expand...

see this is why you are dumb. In the actual quote that you are responding to I never say they were at the trial. I literally said :

there is no reason to call witnesses when you already have their testimony. Nothing has changed for any of the witnesses that already testified in the house.
Click to expand...

So you make this bold, emphasized response thinking you've "got me" about how the witnesses weren't at the trial when I never said they were. I said they had their testimony, and I said nothing had changed from the house. You lack basic reading comprehension. Because you are stupid.
 
the other misrepresentation by the House is that "it would take too long to go thru the courts"
Courts can and do expedite hearings in such situations - but they wanted to rush it thru for POLITICAL reasons.
Then Nancy sits on it for a month. then they squeal about not calling Bolton. what a bunch of BS
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
You haven’t been paying attention lol?

The Democrat establishment is trying to torpedo Bernie, again. Why? Because the field of democrat nominees is so weak *an actual socialist* may actually get the nomination. I’m not prone to making predictions but if it’s Trump vs Bernie I may be tempted to make one.

Joe Biden is a lousy candidate. How many failed runs for president has he made? He’s old. He’s white. He’s got ‘establishment’ tattooed on his forehead. He can’t remember which city he is in half the time. Literally.

The Democrats are a mess right now. You can either accept that or continue with your delusions.
Click to expand...

News flash: Both parties are struggling. Republicans as a party are in the most trouble. They are losing their demographics and gradually losing the numbers race. They need to increasingly lean on voter suppression and far fetched hateful/fearful propaganda. And now, we see unabashed election-rigging coming straight from the President. And Republicans know they are in so much trouble they have to pretend bribery for sought-after foreign election rigging is perfectly OK. I am happy to be a member of neither party, but especially the Republican party.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



News flash: Both parties are struggling. Republicans as a party are in the most trouble. They are losing their demographics and gradually losing the numbers race. They need to increasingly lean on voter suppression and far fetched hateful/fearful propaganda. And now, we see unabashed election-rigging coming straight from the President. And Republicans know they are in so much trouble they have to pretend bribery for sought-after foreign election rigging is perfectly OK. I am happy to be a member of neither party, but especially the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Horse mierda...total horse mierda, Snowflake.
 
dukkha said:
the other misrepresentation by the House is that "it would take too long to go thru the courts"
Courts can and do expedite hearings in such situations - but they wanted to rush it thru for POLITICAL reasons.
Then Nancy sits on it for a month. then they squeal about not calling Bolton. what a bunch of BS
Click to expand...

:hand:
 
PoliTalker-“ They are losing their demographics and gradually losing the numbers race.“

RCP Average 12/7 - 1/23 -- -- 48.0 45.0 Trump +3.0
NYT/Siena 1/20 - 1/23 1689 RV 2.8 46 44 Trump +2
PPP (D) 12/29 - 12/31 964 RV 3.2 49 46 Trump +3
Emerson 12/7 - 12/10 1043 RV 3.0 49 45 Trump +4
All Iowa: Trump vs. Biden Polling Data

Horse mierda, PoliTalker.
 
Republicans could have gotten Bolton to testify. They just didn't want to hear what he has to say. He might implicate the President. Republicans wanted to cover up anything that might do that.
 
PoliTalker said:
Republicans could have gotten Bolton to testify. They just didn't want to hear what he has to say. He might implicate the President. Republicans wanted to cover up anything that might do that.
Click to expand...

The charge of a Senate coverup lost the vote, Snowflake.
 
Hello dukkha,

dukkha said:
the other misrepresentation by the House is that "it would take too long to go thru the courts"
Courts can and do expedite hearings in such situations - but they wanted to rush it thru for POLITICAL reasons.
Then Nancy sits on it for a month. then they squeal about not calling Bolton. what a bunch of BS
Click to expand...

Sorry. Not buying that.

Trump has teams of lawyers specifically adept at dragging things out in court with endless appeals, each one resetting the time frame.
 
Rune said:
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?
Click to expand...

There were witnesses. The House had as many as they said they needed to have overwhelming proof of guilt. If that wasn't true, that's their problem..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top