A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

christiefan915 said:
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."
Click to expand...

Why didn’t they subpoena him, they had that authority.
 
archives said:
It never was a trial, everyone know this, Pelosi's jury was never the Senate, rather the American public, and after Mitch denied witnesses and evidence, it only furthered her case
Click to expand...
correct. it was nothing more then a political farce
 
Hello Phantasmal,

Phantasmal said:
"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."
Click to expand...

That's an interesting discussion. If Trump was to be removed, with the country so bitterly divided, it would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Democrats didn't ask to be put into this situation, didn't ask for the timing. The President brought it on with his own abuse of power. Republicans like to boast about how orderly their gatherings are. If Trump were removed from office it would be hard to imagine Trump fans peacefully protesting that. Some of those people are downright deplorable.
 
anatta said:
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
Click to expand...

The impeachment was not the trial you staggeringly stupid shitstain.
 
Darth Omar said:
To be specific the ‘losers’ are the House. Myself and others warned them about rushing the vote to impeach and sending an incomplete record and crime-less articles to the Senate. One didn’t need to be a prophet to predict the outcome. Pelosi by-passed ‘the bird in the hand’ censure vote and went for the impeachment bird in the bush. All to appease her radical flank. It was a historic miscalculation on her part and will probably cost her seat as Speaker or minority leader.

You won’t like this part lol. The winner is the country. After this, future presidents [including those of your own party] should be safe from party-line impeachment votes. Had Democrats succeeded with this, the next impeachment wouldn’t take 25 years to get here. It would be more like 2-3 before the end of the decade. Abuse of power is too broad and ambiguous—and too easy for hyper-partisan House members to use to *contrive* articles of impeachment with.
Click to expand...
correct. this was an affront to the Constitution.
a partisan impeachment by nature is nothing more then a political ploy of the worse kind
 
Rune said:
The impeachment was not the trial you staggeringly stupid shitstain.
Click to expand...
you moron,
The SENATE HEARD THE WITNESSES CALLED BY THE HOUSE.. even video clips
as well as the manager presentation

gad damn you are a special kind of stoopid
 
Ralph said:
Without witnesses? Who is attempting to sell you that line of shit? The House managers had 18 witnesses in their soviet style star chamber anti-rule of law hearing. Yes 18 (counting the witness that is under witness protection.....IG Michael Atkinson whose transcript Shitforbrains is clutching harder than his own nut sack because if the transcript were offered to the senate record it would impeach Shitforbrains.

This nonsense that Clinton had NEW WITNESSES introduced after the house impeached is total bullshit....there were no new witnesses, all the witnesses in the Clinton impeachment were the same witnesses called in the house.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
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. And of course, being the retarded NPChristie that you are, you start spouting democrat talking points to the minute and to the word like the total mindless drone you are.

Keep losing, loser.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phantasmal said:
Information keeps being revealed. It’s natural to explore the new evidence.
Click to expand...
Bolton? the POTUS lawyers gave an argument that what is rumored in the book was "so stipulated"
and even is so not rising to an impeachable offense - so calling Bolton would not have changed the final outcome
 
The House prepared their case, with witnesses and documents and presented it to the Senate to be judged as to his guilt or innocence. The House managers presented the flawed case, with the testimony of the 17 witnesses and thousands of documents. The swing voters said that since the Articles did not rise to the level of impeachment, no more witnesses or documents were warranted.

Case closed, the accused prevails.

Acquittal pens time.
 
anatta said:
you moron,
The SENATE HEARD THE WITNESSES CALLED BY THE HOUSE.. even video clips
as well as the manager presentation

gad damn you are a special kind of stoopid
Click to expand...
We're the witnesses available for cross examination, retard boy?

I know you don't give a fuck about the Constitution.
 
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...
Bravo! The libertarians turned Trumpublicans, it’s a sad devolution.
 
Do Si Dos said:
dear idiot, 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. you are certifiably retarded. Desh level. A total idiot.

I'm not a mean person. I never insult people unprompted. But you are seriously dumb, there is just no way getting around it. I don't say this to insult you, but to help you. Focus on the simpler things in life, don't expend your dumb girl brain on big topics like politics. Stick to looking at cute pictures of cats, or maybe a jigsaw puzzle (avoid small pieces, i don't want you to choke on them), maybe read a picture book. You have lots of hobbies you could do instead.
Click to expand...

Lol. Those people were not witnesses at the trial. They were not cross-examined by the trump lawyers. You call me dumb yet you don't even know how a trial works. It was a kangaroo court run by liars and grifters. Liars... I'm looking at you, Pat Cipollone.

You are a mean person, make no mistake. I didn't say anything to you that would prompt you to insult me. You just need to unload your misery on anyone who doesn't sign on to your screwy ideas of justice and trump worship. You really have gone around the bend with trump and it's been painful to watch lol.
 
Rune said:
Because Trump illegally blocked his testimony, fucking moron.
Click to expand...
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
 
Were the House witnesses available fir cross examination by the House Republicans? No they were not.
 
Rune said:
We're the witnesses available for cross examination? Shit eater
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top