A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

Phantasmal said:
You think it’s absurd, read Teflon Don’s post, there are some Trump nutters who would allow him to be a dictator. They would do illegal things to help make it happen. It isn’t absurd at all.
Click to expand...

Thought you had me on ignore Queen Pussy Hat?

I knew you couldn’t quit me.

Yes I will do ANYTHING to make sure he serves as long as possible.

I will do ANYTHING to keep democrats out of power

This is war
 
Trump supporters who would allow him to be a dictator...how absurd.

The Separation of Powers, the Co-equal Branches of Government, the lower courts, the Supreme Court are ALL extant.

Absurdity.
 
Hello Do Si Dos,

Do Si Dos said:
their testimony was still entered into the record. And not one of those witnesses proved any crime or said one even took place. you could have had bolton too once the court approved that what he would say would not violate executive privilege, but you were in a rush, until you weren't and then sat on it for a month. Not really a sign of good faith there, is it? But of course, you've already proven every element of his crimes, didn't you? Except you also need more witnesses to prove the case - which you've already proven btw - but still need witnesses for because reasons - That's your line of argument.
Click to expand...

The case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Senate Republicans are not being reasonable.

But I understand more of why they couldn't have witnesses or evidence.

It wouldn't change their minds anyway. They never had any intent to do impartial justice. That was a lie. All but two of them lied under oath. What they did was completely partial justice.

But still I get it.

Their minds were not going to be changed; if they had real evidence in their face for all to see, it would be that much harder to reach acquittal. There would be even more criticism than there already is. Then they would be in a position to have to say they simply do not believe the witnesses. They would essentially have to call people liars. Multiple people. It would make them look even more ridiculous than to have a cover-up sham trial with no witnesses or new evidence.

So they had to eat the image of having a sham trial with no witnesses or new evidence because otherwise it would have had an even more damning image, and the pain would go on longer, stay in the news cycle longer. They would look like even bigger lackeys than they already are.
 
Hello Walt,

Walt said:
The Constitution says nothing about the House investigation, or even if there should be an investigation. trump's whining about the investigation being unconstitutional is nonsense. Those in JPP who have echoed that whining do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court has never overrode a impeachment investigation, and it will never.

The Constitution does say there needs to be a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. It does not specifically say there should be witnesses, but the understanding of what a trial was to the Founding Fathers would have always included witnesses. There are systems where witnesses are not required, but that was something unknown to the Founding Fathers.

But the Senate has a right to regulate themselves on this. There is no appeal beyond the Senate, so no one to tell the Senate they cannot get what they want.

No one, except the voters. If you think that banning witnesses is a violation of what a trial is, then you should vote against the Republicans.
Click to expand...

How to get rid of Trump: Vote Blue No Matter Who.
 
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...
This is the mental gymnastics and pretzel logic Republicans have to attempt to justify their lack of integrity here

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ...

"... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

- Senator Marco Rubio, R-Florida
Click to expand...

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.
 
The swing voters in the Senate have already said that since the Articles do not rise to the level of impeachment, witnesses or documents are not needed.
 
Walt said:
It was never supposed to be a political process. But if it is a political process, then trump can be removed for any political reason they want.
Click to expand...

What a good point.

How can they have one without the other?

They can't say they are going to be completely political about the defense and then complain that the impeachment was politically motivated.

Essentially, what they are saying is: "You side was bad for doing that, but since you did it, then we can do the same thing and it's now magically no longer wrong."
 
Darth Omar said:
I was only commenting on Frank’s absurd Hitler analogy lol.
Click to expand...

In my defense, I have acknowledged that Trump is not like Hitler in many respects. Trump is not nearly as intelligent as Hitler was; Trump was not willing to fight for his country as Hitler was; and Hitler was a dynamic speaker, while Trump has the speaking style of a not especially bright grammar school kid.

The only real similarities are that both are evil, crude, boorish, vindictive, totalitarian...and those kinds of things.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Grokmaster said:
IRRELEVANT. THE HOUSE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM BUT DIDN'T .

STOP THE LYING ABOUT "NO WITNESSES"....
Click to expand...

Liar liar pants on fire.

"The House did ask Bolton to testify
https://twitter.com/x/status/1221826988786245634
. But Bolton, who left his post in September, declined to do so at the White House’s directive. The White House successfully blocked a number of officials from testifying or producing documents relevant to the House’s investigation.


Bolton signaled that he would testify only if he were subpoenaed and if a court ruled that he should obey the subpoena over the White House’s instructions."
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
What’s the saying lol?

If you go after the King make sure you kill him? Democrats didn’t even draw blood with this. Yes, Trump is impeached but Democrats now own the weakest and most partisan impeachment in history. An impeachment that fails to remove a president is a House censure vote—with lipstick on it.

It amounts to a vote of no confidence by the House. Who cares. It’s not like House *democrats* needed to formalize their ‘no confidence’ in Trump—everyone knew that already.
Click to expand...

Those grapes of not being impeached are probably sour anyway.
 
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...
god what an idiot..
witnesses were called (although the IC IG transcript from Schiff's bunker are still MIA) by the House.

The Senate chose not to hear any further testimony; but did hear the House's case

And this is "Unconstititional? :palm: what a moron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top