WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 2)

So...you don't like it, but it's law. As in I don't like to pay my property taxes each year, but I understand it's the law?

 

I hate property taxes too. I still pay them.

 

Then you favor bringing in relevant documentation and direct witnesses (i.e. more than hearsay witnesses).

 

The impeachment did not begin with a vote of the full House to authorize it as has been the process, one person began the impeachment, Nancy Pelosi. It did not begin with a finding of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to find any crimes be they the two specific ones listed or felonies or misdemeanor high offenses as has been the process in the last two. It did not allow the Republicans to call all their witnesses which was not the process before. I don't recall the process that if a member from the minority ask a question about evidence and persons involved that the Chairman could deny their question without proper cause. The whole thing was a sham.

 

I assume you pay them with "two minds." You understand they're needed, but think they are too high. But, you also pay them because you believe in the rule of law, no?

 

Don't know where you got that. You dance with who you brought.........

Bring the articles of impeachment and their report and present it based on the evidence in the impeachment, that upon which he was impeached. This isn't the venue where they should be trying to develop a case, they've already impeached them, they BRAG about he will always be impeached, it will always be on his record now. Are they now saying they really didn't have the evidence to do that and now they need more? That's how it's supposed to work??? If we have a President Warren and a Republican House the House can vote to impeach her and THEN find the evidence?

 

No Court precludes additional relevant evidence, provided it is supplied to both sides and adequate time is granted to adjust both the prosecution and defendant's arguments, even it is is presented during trial. If there is new evidence relevant to the existing charges, it should be admissible.

 

Oh, come now. She and her doggy-avatared amigo are experts in the law!

 

Executive privilege precludes communications between the President and his close advisors, so it goes to court.

Are they now saying they really didn't have the evidence to impeach him and that now they need more to make that case?

 

His argument is silly and unfounded. It's akin to claiming that if a witness did not testify before a grand jury, then they can't testify at the trial.

Where do they come up with this crap? This isn't some freaking board game.

 

The PRECEDENT here. If this is the way it is now then whenever there is an opposition House that doesn't like the President they'll just impeach him to put that mark on his back. If they are going to impeach a President then they better have ALL the evidence and ALL the testimony in that impeachment. So that it IS beyond a reasonable doubt. They are impeaching him FOR LIFE as Pelosi bragged. So if you don't have enough evidence to remove him in the impeachment then you don't a case. We don't need to turn impeachment into censure which is what the founding fathers were worried about.

 

Playing tag team ain't gonna get you anywhere I am quite used to taking on multiple opponents at one time.

This isn't a grand jury and then a criminal trial. It's an impeachment and then trial for removal. sentencing. If the court finds the defendant not guilty what happens to the indictment? If the Senate does not remove what happens to the impeachment? This isn't some primetime legal show.

 

You mean AFTER the House impeached over nothing and with nothing, NOW documents and witnesses are to be utilized? That's not how any court anywhere on earth operates. One cannot count the violations of the ETHICS of justice the political Left is committing here. Ironic for the Party that claims to be so very . . . ethical.

 

There are no judicial court rulings to embrace or validate the theory of absolute immunity. Every court to review it has trashed it.

Most recently was December of 2019.

 

No. They impeached him without the subpoenaed witnesses and on the basis of the 17 witnesses who defied the WH instructions, in the letter of October 8th. The position of the White House is that the impeachment inquiry is/was illegal. However, they have evidently changed their minds, since the President has named a defense team for the Senate trial, thus recognizing the House impeachment.

 

Agreed, but they would like to make it one.

 

Is a 47.0% average in favor of his outright removal is a win to you?

538 has it at 48.1%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

 

You seriously want to keep arguing that Trump is not asserting absolute immunity?

 

Then you should work on your memory. The chair has always had the authority to veto questions and witnesses.

As for the start of the process, your argument has been embraced by the White House. According to the White House, trump refused to comply with valid subpoenas because of an OLC opinion delivered orally in October which was based on a dissenting opinion from an unrelated case issued two months LATER.

 

Now if you could find any of that mentioned as a requirement in the constitution, you might have a point. Since it’s not there, you don’t.

 

The RCP Average Polling is about the best overall gauge and it's the trend and then day two a strong divergence. To remove a sitting President when there is NO strong favor of doing so and an election is 10 months away. And Schiff having the AUDACITY to say on the Senate floor we can't trust the voters to make that decision that HE should make that decision with this impeachment and he MUST be removed before the people can reelect him?

How can you stand for this?

 

Can the Senators consider evidence like the GAO report?

 

Do you believe that the Senators can or should consider evidence like the GAO report?

 

Yeah, in this impeachment Schiff would not allow the Republicans to ask all their questions, he without cause restricted questioning about important matters. And yes impeachment is by the HOUSE not the SPEAKER of the House. To start an impeachment the HOUSE should have voted to start it not Nancy by decree in cahoots with Schiff even assigning it to him instead of the proper forum the Judiciary Committee so this claim about it followed process is laughable on its face.

 

I can stand for it because you are misquoting him.