A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

[Into the Night]

You are not making any sense now, Dog.

When you get back to making sense, we'll talk.

Perfect sense. I see you don't understand English.

 

[Into the Night]

I am not a Democrat, but every Democrat that I personally know DOES accept the 2016 election vote. Trump got approximately 3,000,000 less votes than Hillary Clinton...but got more electoral votes...SO HE WON.

No, they don't. They've been trying to overturn the election results of Trump since BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE! The President is not elected by popular vote. There are not 3000000 members in the electoral college.

Jesus H. Christ, Dog...HE FUCKING WON! He won...he lives in the White House...he signs congress passed bills into law. We all "accept" it.

Democrats don't.

Every time he was mentioned during the impeachment trial by a Democrat...HE WAS CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Nope. He was called a 'criminal', even though no crime was committed. He was called a Nazi. He was called a 'traitor'.

So what are you babbling about on that issue?

What the Democrats are babbling about.

I feel the same way Adam Schiff feels...BUT SO WHAT?

Because the United States is a federated republic. Schiff wants to destroy the Constitution.

There is going to be an election in November this year...and it does not mean shit what we think. The result of that election will determine who will serve as president for the next four years. If Trump loses the popular vote by 10,000,000...but wins the electoral vote by 1...HE WILL BE THE PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

You really have no clue now this works, do you?

So what is your point?

His point is that Democrats refuse to accept the 2016 election vote. He's right, no matter how you couch it.

The Democrats...and the editorial boards of most newspapers across America...and a very healthy majority of American citizens ARE VERY, VERY, VERY disappointed that the Senate did not ask for more witnesses and documents.

Why do they need to? YOU don't get to choose what the Senate decide to do or not do.

But what the fuck does it mean "refuse to accept" it?

We "accept" it...because there is not a goddam thing we can do about it. But we do not like it.

No, you don't accept it. You and other Democrats have been trying to overthrow the Constitution, overthrow the 2016 election, and deny the authority of the Senate and the President.

Now...start speaking some sense...so we can actually have a conversation.

He is. You are not. It is YOU that does not want a conversation. You just want to preach. Redefinition fallacy (capitulation<->conversation).

 

[Into the Night]

What in hell does this reply have to do with what you quoted me saying?

Everything.

 

[Into the Night]

actually, only if a majority in the Senate wants.......

A supermajority, actually.

 

[Into the Night]

You are making no sense. We will try this again tomorrow. Maybe your buzz will be gone.
One last thought. To "accept" that Trump won...DOES NOT REQUIRE BENDING THE KNEE to him as you do. It does not mean kissing his ass, the way McConnell and the Senate Republicans do.

It DOES require not trying to overturn the Constitution and to overturn the 2016 election results though.

That may be your mistake. You simply are unable to recognize "acceptance." You think it means servility...and apparently have no problem engaging in it.
...deleted insults...

No, that would be YOU. You don't get to redefine 'acceptance' as 'rejection'.

 

[Into the Night]

You're right. That is a huge problem. It got Trump impeached. And it was shown that it was only in Trump's interest.

How?

The appearance of that is certainly not good. But what control does Joe Biden have over Hunter Biden to force him to make certain decisions?

Apparently you don't have any children.

And more importantly, though the appearnce is bothersome, what actual laws have been broken?

If what Joe Biden did what he boasted (and indications are he did), then he AND Obama are guilty of extortion of a foreign nation for personal gain. U.S. Code 18.871 and 18.876.

What basis is there for an investigation?

U.S. Code 18.871, 18.876, and Joe Biden's boast.

Should people be investigated because they earn a lot of money?

Not the reason for the investigation, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

Due process under the 5th.

Nope. Does not violate due process. You are attempting to deny the authority of the Senate again.

 

[Into the Night]

It has already been established by the sole constitutional authority on the subject that the articles do rise to the level of impeachment. Earl is in denial of reality.

We are still waiting for Earl to get back to us with the impeachment case that he claims that the Supreme Court reversed, but I doubt any of us are holding our breath.

WRONG. The House is not the Constitution. Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Due process applies to the victim, also.

What victim?

 

[Into the Night]

If that was true,they would have let Bolton testify.

YOU don't get to dictate how the Senate conducts a trial.

 

[Into the Night]

Everything right now is pointing to it being close. It could go either way. Democrats are almost certainly going to keep the House, and win seats in the Senate. The question becomes will they win the White House, and will they get a majority in the Senate.

I think the greatest danger to Republicans chances is trump speaking. One part of the impeachment that did really backfire is it moved trump's tweets off the front page. If trump agrees to show up to all the debates, and people watch those debates, Republicans are toast.

News polls don't mean anything.

 

[Ralph]

Nope. Does not violate due process. You are attempting to deny the authority of the Senate again.

Indeed....they enjoy pointing out the fact that IMPEACHMENT is a "political" event when they are denying due process in the house....but demand a trial under the US CODE LAWS of the land when the Constitution specially details the fact that IMPEACHMENT hearing's are controlled via the SENATE RULES and the senate alone has the power to establish what rules will be followed. Impeachment is also a political animal in the senate...as the SCOTUS judge is nothing but a figure head to rule on PROCEDURES established by (not code law) but SENATE RULES.

If you live by the POLITICAL SWORD....you will die by the POLITICAL SWORD. The senate always was the FIREWALL against a rouge radical left wing congress....and the dumbasses assumed they could talk their way through a fake impeachment trial. I simply loved the "optics" of Nadler almost knocking down Shitforbrains in an attempt to see who gets to the cameras first...…..I have never seen a little fat man move with such Ninja type moves......priceless.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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?

the constitution affords defendants a speedy trial, facing their accuser, and witnesses to debunk the prosecution............but nowhere in the constitution is it required if the defendant chooses to not use any of those tools

 

[Flash]

It has already been established by the sole constitutional authority on the subject that the articles do rise to the level of impeachment. Earl is in denial of reality.

We are still waiting for Earl to get back to us with the impeachment case that he claims that the Supreme Court reversed, but I doubt any of us are holding our breath.

There was a court case that ruled Judge Hastings should be tried by the full Senate after being convicted by a Senate committee. However, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. U. S. (a judge, not president) overruled that decision and said the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters.

 

[Flash]

Does the Supreme Court ever have witnesses?

Maybe for those cases the Supreme Court hears under its original jurisdiction.

 

[Into the Night]

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

Lies are not evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

He's also free to do interviews any time he wants.

So what?

 

[Into the Night]

TRE45ON's actions were 100% impeachable, no question about it -- if there was a (D) after his name.

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

 

[Ralph]

What will happen when the house once again attempts to Subpoena witnesses void of taking a vote of the entire house of representatives...a witness such as Bolton who falls under the umbrella of executive privilege in defending the executive branch from the prying eyes of the house? Of course it will be challenged in the court....assuming that the Supreme Court has not already ruled on the first instance where congress attempted to void the constitutional rule of law and declare Executive Privilege "OBSTRUCTION of CONGRESS".

What? Does the left actually expect the executive to roll over with each attempt at a congressional coup d'état to make null and void People's ballot choice? Its already been established they can't BS their way through and senatorial impeachment tribunal. Facts always defeats PROPAGANDA. This lunacy will when Trump drags the house into the majority on his coattails on Nov. 3, 2020.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Exactly: It would be up to the PROSECUTORS (the house team) to table a motion to allow the house witnesses to testify UNDER OATH, and of course be CROSS EXAMINED UNDER OATH. No jury (THE SENATE) is ever charged with finding and allowing NEW WITNESSES for the prosecutor. The senate is nothing but a JURY to examine and judge the houses discovery that proves or is insufficient to prove the 2 articles of impeachment. The day of discovery ended with the sound of Nancy's gavel.

The SCOTUS JUDGE? A figure head to make sure that the procedures that the senators voted on for the trial are upheld. Did you not notice how Roberts refused to be a tie breaking vote on anything other that procedural votes? It would be unconstitutional for a SCOTUS judge to cast a vote that leads to a verdict....as he represents another unelected branch of government. The Senate and Senate alone has the authority in relation to an impeachment tribunal. The house has no say, the house cannot demand NEW WITNESSES that went undiscovered in the house....the judge has no say on anything other than making sure the Senate Rules are upheld as per agreement in establishing the rules for a Senate Impeachment hearing.

A motion was tabled to allow the senate to do the job of the house......and call NEW WITNESSES, and that motion was defeated by a simple majority vote. GAME OVER. Time to go back to the house and attempt to find another FRAME UP.

51 to 49