A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
This is the mental gymnastics and pretzel logic Republicans have to attempt to justify their lack of integrity here



Noteworthy here is that tacit admission that Trump went way over the line - that it was not a perfect phone call. And that means Republicans are leaving the door open to punish future Democratic presidents who try to do what Trump did.
Click to expand...

Republicans: "That's Horrible! How Disgusting! How could you do such a terrible thing! Democrats are such reprehensible people for doing things like that."

"But now, of course, since you've already committed this horrible act, now it's perfectly acceptable and we can do exactly the same thing without doing any wrong."

"It's only bad when YOU do it. When WE do it, it is perfectly justified and we are as pure as the driven snow."
 
Three factors leading to exoneration.

(1) Flawed Articles that did not rise to the level of impeachment.

(2) An impeachment process that was unconstitutional due to the previous Supreme Court ruling that the “House” means the entire House, not the House Committee that voted to begin an impeachment inquiry.

(3)Amateur House managers who insulted the jury, the Senators, with their “coverup” statement.
 
Earl said:
Why didn’t they subpoena him, they had that authority.
Click to expand...

"Bolton’s lawyers said he would sign on to a lawsuit filed by his deputy, Charles Kupperman, who asked a court for guidance after he received a subpoena from the House and an order from the White House not to comply."
 
Hello christiefan915,

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...

And if Trump was innocent why would he prevent the witnesses who could prove it from testifying? Well the answer is, of course, that he is guilty.
 
Earl said:
Sticks and stones...lol

Trump has an Ivy League degree, is an author, a multibillionaire and the president of the greatest nation on earth and just cleaned the Democrats’ collective clocks...again.

Anyone want to compare resumes?

He has a beautiful, intelligent wife who speaks multiple languages and loving children.

What is there not to like?
Click to expand...

What's not to like? Ummmm...him; his conduct, his ignorance, his lack of empathy, his appalling lack of credence, his lack of class...

...well, I'm sure you get the idea.
 
christiefan915 said:
When did the House hold a trial? It was discovery, Mr. Earl.
Click to expand...
Um...no Miss Marple.

The case is prepared in the House. The Senate judges the case prepared in the House. The House presented a flawed case (the Articles) that the swing Senate voters determined they did not rise to the level of impeachment
.
Exoneration pens time.
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
asserting privilege isn't "illegal" nor is not complying with a Congressional subpoena by POTUS

The House failed to take it to court to enforce testimony -all this was their choice.
Then they start to cry about it..losers
Click to expand...

Bullshit.
Executive privilege is very narrow.
 
Frank Apisa said:
What's not to like? Ummmm...him; his conduct, his ignorance, his lack of empathy, his appalling lack of credence, his lack of class...

...well, I'm sure you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Um...Frank, none of those are impeachable.

I no longer expect much in the way of character and integrity and honesty in a president.

I just want a junkyard dog, vicious American patriot who puts America and Americans (workers and voters) first.

That’s about all we can hope for.anymore.
 
anatta said:
they were available if the Senate CHOSE to cross. a counsel can pass on a cross examination.

You don't like the results so you attack the process which is the height of irony,
considering the lack of due process given to POTUS by the House
Click to expand...

What lack of due process you sniveling twat?
 
The fact that the swing voters in the Senate have already said that the Articles do not rise to the level of impeachment is a fact, not an excuse.
 
Stretch said:
They were exactly who the Dims called "witnesses".:palm:
Even so, they did not allow the defense to call witnesses.
Click to expand...

They were not holding a trial, they were collecting information before a trial so there was no defense at that point.

If you listened to anything this past week, you'd stop saying that trump's side wasn't allowed to call witnesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top