Outlaw Pete wrote: » More lies Schiff lies exposed:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832 Hyde was on with Fredo last night and the chap is as mad as a box of frogs. Seemed drunk or high or both.
notobtuse wrote: » desperately needs more witnesses and more investigations
notobtuse wrote: » This Impeachmentpalooza is incredibly boring. So Shifty Shiff has been telling us the Democrats had an incredible case built up for impeachment against Trump when they delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but now desperately needs more witnesses and more investigations to proceed? This guy is a walking, talking, bug-eyed piece of excrement.
Boggles wrote: » Yeah imagine asking for documents and key witnesses for a trial. He has some nerve all right. *Shakes Fist*
Quin_Dub wrote: » I know you know this , but just to be sure.. The House does the investigation , the Senate holds the trial. The output of the House Investigation in Irish Legal terms would be a mixture of Garda reports/interviews and the charges filed by the DPP. The Senate then hold the trial - When have you ever heard of a trial that refused to have witnesses and refused to accept into evidence the findings of the Police investigation? Does that sounds like a fair , real proper trial to you?
notobtuse wrote: » Why not wait till they had all their ducks in a row, then? The courts were going to render a decision on Executive Privilege in short order but the Democrats just had to rush the impeachment to save the country. Then took almost a month to deliver them to the Senate? WTF? Shifting the goal posts seems to be Shifty Shiff's MO... after terminal lying about the entire impeachment process, that is.
notobtuse wrote: » The Senate is not responsible for doing the Houses' job!
Quin_Dub wrote: » No one is asking the Senate to do the House job , they did their job , what's being asked is that the Senate do their job. Which is to hold an actual trial - With Witnesses and Evidence and all the things that every trial anywhere else has.
Once the trial begins, there are clear rules for each of the key players. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presides. Senators do not do the talking; they can only submit written questions. Impeachment managers from the House will represent the Democrats' argument. The president's defense includes White House counsel, outside attorneys and a number of Republican members of the House. It's just a show trial on the part of Democrats for the voters. It's just a political show trial on the part of Democrats for the people. - - - - After the trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict or acquit the president on each article of impeachment. Convicting Trump and therefore removing him from office requires 67 votes. - - - - Acquitting Trump of the charges or dismissing the charges, however, takes only 51 votes.
pearcider wrote: » The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it. Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.
notobtuse wrote: » If the Democrats wanted Bolton or Trump's lawyer to testify why did then not subpoena them to testify before delivering the articles of impeachment?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I read the whole thing. You made the right call stopping where you did.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You mean the job they wanted to do but Trump obstructed by telling witnesses not to testify? The same witnesses he assured us would clear his name? It is very odd that he would stop them testifying.
pearcider wrote: » Biden, Pocahontas and the rest are literally UNELECTABLE.
Boggles wrote: » Because Trump like he is doing with his tax returns would have crippled it through the courts.
Boggles wrote: » Why should it go to court at all, if Trump and key players have nothing to hide, why not testify and submit the documents?
Boggles wrote: » Because Trump like he is doing with his tax returns would have crippled it through the courts. Why should it go to court at all, if Trump and key players have nothing to hide, why not testify and submit the documents? Trump himself said he would love to see witnesses, all though strangely he ordered them not to testify in the house. Odd that isn't it?
Sean.3516 wrote: » Also if you’re accused of a crime and you believe that you are innocent why would you willingly give the prosecution (in this case the Dems in Congress) the ammunition they want.
Boggles wrote: » You'll have to ask the Donald that particular question. Trump said the witnesses would prove his innocence, he would love to see them testify.
notobtuse wrote: » He says a lot of things. Thankfully he has advisors to tell him history shows Democrats can’t be trusted.
notobtuse wrote: » Wrong. Courts would have fast tracked it and rendered a decision.
Boggles wrote: » Citation please? Proof, link, anything?
We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases. The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt, but we think it reasonable to assume courts would take a similarly expeditious view in the context of a subpoena issued pursuant to impeachment proceedings. Of course, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court has never decided a case concerning a congressional subpoena for information issued to an executive branch official where the president has asserted executive privilege. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide the issue is a political question and leave it to the other two branches to sort out in some other way.
notobtuse wrote: » Here you go...https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
duploelabs wrote: » Possible doesn't mean the same as assured, you know that right?
Sean.3516 wrote: » He might feel more comfortable about it if Republicans had been allowed by the Dems to call their own witnesses. .
