Great news for those who say Trump has not been given the right to defend himself!

Grandstanding that is beneficial to the country is fine with me.

 

Lol. At least your consistently funny.

 

Pretty sure that just what SHE and the other idiots did from the start to the end ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

How do you freeze something that was delivered before the delivery date?

 

Yup, they have had time to alter their perceptions of the loss and are back in full delusional mode again ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Hey! I have it on good authority "Hearsay and opinion" that you are addressing a seasoned twenty year pro debater, so show some respect

 

Lol. I'd tell them to go to hell and do it in the senate where it will be fair.

 

You never had evidence, never presented any evidence, that's the problem. This is all opinion, second/third hand hearsay, and liberal hatred, nothing remotely proving any crime. Its the same nonsense as 'collusion' and will end the same, with Trump being exonerated of whatever prog lies are told about him...

 

Still making up history, I see.

This is so wrong it isn't even incorrect. Explain the talk of impeachment before and right after the Mueller report. Explain the WAPO headline that impeachment now begins the day of the inauguration. Explain the talk of impeachment that began 2 or 3 days after the 2016 election. Then, ignoring the fact that Trump did not entort (???) a foreign country to dig up dirt on a [maybe] political opponent, would you link to the statute that makes that a crime? I don't think there is one, but I don't know for certain. Then if you do find such a statute will you join me in making a referral to the DOJ and FBI for Obama doing precisely that?

 

That was the FINAL vote., which indicted Clinton It didn't happen until AFTER the impeachment inquiry was over. Trumpers and Republicans are claiming that there has to be a separate vote just to begin the impeachment inquiry. Starr's report was ordered by the judiciary committee as part of an already started impeachment inquiry. The Republicans were already running a impeachment inquiry before Starr began his investigation.[/QUOTE]Teaching you basic factual history is getting boring and very tiresome. The 258-176 vote was on Oct 8, 1998 to hold a formal impeachment inquiry (and with due process rules I might add), there days after the judiciary committee received Starr's report. In Dec 19, 1998 the House voted 228 to 206 to impeach and send impeachment articles to the Senate.

Please do not respond with more made-up horsecrap.

 

So, what you are saying is, contrary to the lies Trump has been telling about defending himself, Trump doesn't want his close associates testifying in the House. It is his choice not to defend himself, not the House committees. Is that what you are saying?

Do you really think Trump will allow Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Giuliani, and McGahn to testify in the Senate trial?

 

He'll have no choice. They will be defacto witnesses, and the Senate Trial is a legalized proceeding. Frankly, I am eager for their testimony. Because I believe a lot of them will give information(and documentation of information) that has thereto been unsubmitted.

An example is the disposition Giuliani got from Ukraine. That has not been submitted to the House, but it will most certainly be submitted in the Senate trial, and will be heavily considered.

Hence, you can expect finally we'll get an official word under oath from the Bidens on the matter.

The last one who wants a trial isn't Trump, but Hunter Biden who is up to ****'s creeks, same thing with the "whistleblower" for forcing the release of classified information. He too, will finally be called to testify

The fact is, the crap show of Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff is irrelevant when the big boys decide the fate of this. To which, you may or may not like. Maybe they convict him, they more probably don't and the voters will finally be allowed to make our decision without Pelosi's empty threats and her pitiful attempt to usurp power for herself.

 

What "truth"? Certainly not the truth you're hoping for: IE: Proof of bribery or extortion, or some plot to get 'dirt' on Biden(ROFL.) You think Trump couldn't simply hire a PAC to do that? There's no evidence whatsoever for these claims, yet we had to sit a week through it all.

So they have reduced themselves to the "abuse of office"(not that they can pinpoint an abuse either.) This is going to get laughed out of the Senate so hard. At the minimum, you'll have the defacto equivalent of a Mistrial.

 

What a horrible dirty trick the Democratic's did. Holding public hearings where witnesses told of the corruption of Trump, for all to see and hear. If only they had kept quiet. Then Trump and his supporters could go on, pretending nothing was wrong.

 

Doesn't really matter does it? Either through Impeachment or at at the ballot box, Trump will be just a bad memory come February 2021.

 

This kind of shows the depth of Republican defence of Trump. I watched the hearings and all the witnesses were first person witnesses. The opinion, second/third hand hearsay, hatred, and never proving a crime, is just Republican propaganda. I'm sure they know full well most people will not have seen the actual testimony, and see that they are not representing the reality of the situation.

 

None of them were on the call, and the whistle blower didn't testify openly. This whole thing is a sham, the people know it, the polls are showing that swing states aren't buying it. Impeachment will just ensure Dems lose the House and their clown loses to Trump in 2020...

 

Probably, as opposed to testifying for the House which nobody with the least bit of sense would do.

 

Oh. I know . Just ask him.

 

It matters substantially, and I've been trying to get Liberals to pay attention but you're not, because he's the "bad evil Trump." There is a substantial difference between impeachment and being defeated at the polls. If he's defeated at the polls, I imagine many conservatives and/or Trump supporters would be upset by it, but they can't logically be angry by it. Eventually, a President Warren will be given the "space to lead"(and unlike with Trump, there would be real, tangible space.). I can see myself negotiating with a President Warren if she wins a duly and fair election, just as we begrudgingly agreed or disagreed with the Obama Administration.

But an impeachment carries a dark cloud for whoever the 2020 President is, it will be seen as the power grab that it is, instead of power being conferred. Warren will have governed under a dark cloud, and the only way to erase that dark cloud is to give some sort of compromise, or some sort of fig leaf that would quell conservatives/trump supporters.

That being said, that's not Elizabeth Warren. I find it hard to believe, she of the 'woke' campaign is going to unite the country that includes those 'deplorables'. It's the exact same reason Hillary lost, instead of winning by that landslide she dreamed of. No one conceivably believes that someone with to use Gowdy's words "that animus bias" would actually give a fig leaf.

So, Liberals, we get it: You hate the big bad, evil, can never do anything right Trump. We felt, to a far lesser extent about the previous President(Obama was a domestic mess, foreign policy he was excellent until the Arab Spring. That's what happens with bad advisors.)

There's a right way and a wrong way to proceed. The right way, is to take the risk that you just might have 8 years of Trump. We had 8 years of Obama and polarizing accusations to go with it, and the inability to ever reach across the aisle while forcing a health care law we didn't really like. We had that, we dealt with it, we sucked it up.

If you do it right, and you get an Elizabeth Warren I will gladly give her every opportunity to succeed. I most certainly won't be resisting her administration. I will, however look to negotiate with her on her 52 trillion dollar price tag, that has to come down.

 

He already did. The transcript was his deposition. Nothing else needed to be said. Now Schiff needs to testify to his discussion with the leakers and Obama needs to testify to what the leaker was doing visiting the Obama White House dozens of times and the leaker's attorney needs to testify to what he meant when he swore to bring forward leakers to end up reversing the will of the American voters. Nadler could testify to his personal investment in putting Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon and how that has swayed his actions. The rest will be thrown out in the Senate, if the rules that apply to all other cases apply to the Senate trial, there will be a transcript and perjury on Vindman's part and it will be all over.

 

Defend yourself as in cross examining the witnesses, actually hearing the witnesses testify, calling your own witnesses, submitting evidence, refuting evidence. There is no requirement the accused speak a word in their defense or is that something you want to change to just so you can get Trump?

By the way still waiting on your response on the Dems say it's a political not a legal proceeding, you seem to have left the room on that one.

 

Yes Presidents have always had executive privilege with their close advisors. What would they add anyway? What would Bolton add?

 

WHAT????? You are joking aren't you? They had prima facie evidence of multiple felonies and a prosecutor ready to charge him.

It was NOT. His report was not "ordered" by the judiciary. The special panel of judges appointed him are ordered him to investigate the several matters une the IC law. The IC law under which he was appointed required him to submit his report to the Congress. It STARTED the impeachment it did not come after the impeachment was begun.

 

True. Trump is toast!

Who's Obama?