The official Impeachment Trial thread.

Dec 2012
21,397
8,652
California
Oh brother.
First of all, there is plenty of evidence and witnesses, which have been presented, published, televised, supervised and dramatized all over the world. We have testimony. We have phone calls. We have text. We have the president's OWN WORDS. We have Mulvaney's own words. We even have the defense teams (Dersh) own words: “Let’s say it’s true, okay?" It's not impeachable. In other words, SO WHAT?
Second, (and this has been repeated so many times it's become a joke) THIS IS NOT a criminal court of law. So the whole innocent until proven guilty DOES NOT APPLY.
Now pay close attention cuz you're gonna want to memorize this:
Politicians who come under fire for abusing their office do not get a legal presumption of innocence. People only get the presumption of innocence if they are indicted and facing trial for crimes. The presumption of innocence is for criminal defendants, not presidents.

Don't take my word for it (and I know you won't) but maybe you'll believe SCOTUS who says that the criminal justice system applies the rule of DUE PROCESS. Due process is a constitutional guarantee that applies when the government tries to take away someone’s life, liberty, or property.
Trump's due process kicks in when he has been accused/indicted of a crime....like when Trump finally leaves the WH and the SDNY comes after him---THEN--his ass will be hauled into a courtroom and his DUE PROCESS will kick in.

Maybe you should just stop posting. Most of us have children and grandchildren who display more intelligence.
The House demonstrated their lack of Due Process. The Senate, who has the sole power to try the case, listned to the ranting of Schiff, and decided that since no witnesses for Trump were allowed by the House, the same respect should be given in the Senate. The Senate decided that they were not going to do the job of the House. Did I mention...THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TRY THE CASE? Seems I heard that a lot from the Liberals here, concerning the House. Look out now, shoes on the other foot...
 
Jul 2019
12,700
9,306
Georgia
The House demonstrated their lack of Due Process. The Senate, who has the sole power to try the case, listned to the ranting of Schiff, and decided that since no witnesses for Trump were allowed by the House, the same respect should be given in the Senate. The Senate decided that they were not going to do the job of the House. Did I mention...THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TRY THE CASE? Seems I heard that a lot from the Liberals here, concerning the House. Look out now, shoes on the other foot...
you're greatly overestimating disappointment here

pretty much everyone knew Repubs would vote against witnesses
in fact, I think this is going to hurt them more than if they had voted for witnesses

chew on it for a second, maybe you'll figure out what I mean
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Nov 2005
10,146
5,528
California
What evidence? 17 people with opinion and nothing else?
Describing exactly what they saw is not "opinion".
But of course, you can't be honest enough to address that.


In order to have subpoena power the full House has to vote on it.
No. It does not.
I welcome you to document this claim, but we both know you won't.
In fact, I'll disprove your lying claim right here and now.
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.​

Was this comment meant as a response to my question: What rule didn't they follow?
Or were you simply going to ignore that?


The House demonstrated their lack of Due Process.
You keep saying this but repeatedly you fail to actually explain WHAT DUE PROCESS requirement do you think they didn't comply with.


The Senate, who has the sole power to try the case, listned to the ranting of Schiff, and decided that since no witnesses for Trump were allowed by the House, the same respect should be given in the Senate.
You guys keep throwing out stupid excuses for this and NONE of them make sense.
Witnesses for Trump WERE ALLOWED.
What was NOT allowed was calling people who had absolutely nothing to contribute to the question of Trump's innocence / guilt for the charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007 and se7en
Jul 2019
12,700
9,306
Georgia
Manchin called for censure?

this Season of Presidentmania is pretty lame. The good writers must be on vacation

it's surprising coming from Manchin because he sucks dotards balls, however it'd be much more interesting if it had came from a true Dotardian Senator.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
71,662
32,223
Colorado
and the biggest Trump pumpers of all are the fake-christians!! They are super giddy over separating parents from children/infants at the border (so much for "traditional family values"), they support his continual lying, they support him cheating on all his wives. I guess if one good thing has come from Trump it was to fully illuminate exactly what a moral black hole the Evangelical right is.
Yup....

 
Dec 2018
3,908
3,241
Indiana
Although the Supreme Court recognized executive privilege (separation of powers) before United States v. Nixon, the Court confirmed executive privilege in United States v. Nixon. Does that answer your question?
No, I'd never take a used car dealers word for a damned thing. Can you cite the exact Supreme Court case where executive privilege was "confirmed" before Nixon? Like Trump, you're bluffing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Dec 2015
21,342
22,397
Arizona
If America pulls through this national nightmare, I might try to teach some "trump Studies" courses at a University. It's going to become a huge area of research, and it hits on so many levels - Political, Sociological, and Psychological.

There was a Semester in College when I took 2 classes which solely focused on the infamous Hanging Chads 2000 election, so I can only imagine there's going to be entire departments devoted to "what the hell happened"

if we make it
that is
In fact, I think you've already GOT the title of your course: What the Hell Happened?
No one will have to ask what that means, will they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Dec 2015
21,342
22,397
Arizona
You're confused -- obstructing Congress in an investigation is a violation of the rules. An imperial presidency isn't what the Framers had in mind.
Come to think of it, OBSTRUCTING could be the charge for any number of things: Obstructing Brains, Obstructing Precedent, Obstructing Truth, Obstructing Decency, Morality, Common Sense??
Just a few examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rescue Basket