Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: carewemust

And the number one term being used on ATS was ‘overwhelming evidence’

“What about all the overwhelming evidence, how do you explain that?”

“Name one single piece of evidence”

“He’s a bully and he’s not above the law”

Not an american and I'd like to know - What are the dems' excuse for not letting the republicans have their own witnesses earlier in the impeachment hearings.

This whole "WE WANT OUR WITNESSES" looks just absurd.
Didn't they already get their witnesses in the house hearing?
Why did they block every republicans request for witnesses?

a reply to: Breakthestreak

At 12:00 midnight, Jerry Nadler's hemorrhoids and hunger pains drove him off the deep end...

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day, which was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., just as the clock struck midnight.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: 1337Kph
The HOUSE works differently from the SENATE. The chairman of each respective committee chooses to allow or deny witnesses. Both Schiff (Intel Committee) and Nadler (Judiciary Committee) turned down every person on the Republican's list of desired witnesses. WHY? Because they knew those witnesses would sink the case they were pushing through.

11 Democrat Amendments tabled !!

The McConnell Rules pass with minor concessions !!

Who's the joke on again ? 😎 🎯

Democrats mostly wanted new witnesses and documents !!

Witnesses and documents they themselves failed to get in their own Majority House !! 😀


Senate Republicans muscle through rules for Trump trial

Senate Republicans forced through a resolution establishing the rules for President Trump’s impeachment trial in the early morning hours Wednesday, rejecting Democrats' demands for additional witnesses and documents at the outset of the proceeding.

Senators voted 53-47 on the resolution capping off hours of debate, with Trump’s legal team and House managers engaging in a heated, public back and forth while senators themselves debated the measure during closed-door caucus meetings.

The final vote on passage of the rules came after Democrats tried and failed to get language added to the resolution that would have included a deal at the beginning of the trial on witnesses and documents related to the delayed Ukraine aid.

I wish we could see Nadler's face. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

The whole "case" up in smoke 😖


Up On Cripple Creek - The Band

a reply to: xuenchen

The Democrats' "Great Mormon Hope" drove a stake through their hearts today too.

Romney sides 100% with McConnell/Republicans: www.redstate.com...

The LOSERS keep LOSING.

originally posted by: 1337Kph
Not an american and I'd like to know - What are the dems' excuse for not letting the republicans have their own witnesses earlier in the impeachment hearings.

This whole "WE WANT OUR WITNESSES" looks just absurd.
Didn't they already get their witnesses in the house hearing?
Why did they block every republicans request for witnesses?

The DEM allowed two that the GOP wanted during the House investigation. Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker were both witnesses the GOP wanted to testify.

Odd how people forget that these days, or lie about it on the Senate floor while speaking for the President of the United States.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: carewemust

And the number one term being used on ATS was ‘overwhelming evidence’

“What about all the overwhelming evidence, how do you explain that?”

“Name one single piece of evidence”

“He’s a bully and he’s not above the law”

Having a good case with overwhelming evidence does not mean you wouldn't want more evidence to make your case stronger.

Big MSNBC guy, Ari Melber, was told by a friend of someone inside the GOP that there would be "more than 4" defections of Republicans away from McConnell, to vote with Chuck Schumer/Democrats on Tuesday.

Domestic Terrorist Ari Was So Excited!: twitter.com...

Democrat Pundits are being served large helpings of sautéed crow this week.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yah. Trump never speaks about article 2 except when he does.

Wanna quote trump on that?

a reply to: carewemust

How do you know that?

Got some witnesses youd like to request?

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

My first point for discussion is why there has been such a heavy emphasis from the House managers to introduce more evidence if they stood at the podium for the last 2 months saying their case is air tight? Why not just present what you have if it's such a strong case? The rules and procedures are formalities, it doesn't change the nature of the impeachment trial. Thoughts? Let the good times roll!

The rules so far are in line with the rules of any criminal trial. The prosecution has to present a prima facia case or the whole thing is thrown out. That shouldn't be hard to do; prosecutors do it every day across the nation. If I am accused of, say, shoplifting, the prosecution has to present a case that makes it at least appear on the face (hence the legal term) that I am guilty. If they cannot do that, for instance if they cannot show I had the item, I didn't produce a receipt, etc., then they have no case and the whole thing is thrown out of court.

That's the "innocent until proven guilty" thing in action. As someone walks into a courtroom, they have an aura of innocence. It is up to the prosecution to remove that aura of innocence, not up to the accused to show they have it.

Prosecution and defense get equal time under the rules to show a crime has likely been committed. That's fair. The House actually has an advantage already, given the unfair treatment given during their investigation. That's fine: the Constitution allowed such. But the Constitution does not allow the House Managers to continue their unfair practices in the Senate. McConnell had it right in an earlier comment: the Senate is the stable body of the Congress, and that is why the decision to convict or acquit is given to the Senate. The House can change every two years... only a third of the Senate can change in the same time.

I expect there will be some witnesses; the allegations being thrown around about denying witnesses are untrue. The only restriction on witnesses is that they come after the opening arguments, just like any other criminal court. But we all heard about the secret hearings in the Capitol basement, all saw the constant refusal to allow any defense whatsoever during the open hearings, and all heard the witnesses, whose testimony was touted as being so "damning," also testify there were no criminal or impeachable offenses. I don't see where requiring the House to show a prima facia case before going into full trial mode is so heinous a request... especially since most of the House Managers are lawyers by trade.

Personally, I would like to see House impeachment require a 2/3 supermajority like conviction. That would have stopped this circus in its tracks, as it would have forced the Democrats to at least act like they had some respect for the Republicans. But, that would take a Constitutional Convention, and in today's political climate that's not likely to happen.

TheRedneck

Hakeem plays the race card .. //and// *fails* !!


Horrible. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries Called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Numerous Times – KKK Trump (VIDEO)

Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries blathered on for over an hour on Tuesday night in the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Jeffries has repeatedly called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hakeem has used this line to describe the American President numerous times.

🤓 🎱

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: xuenchen

Yah. Trump never speaks about article 2 except when he does.

Wanna quote trump on that?

Read the article without the jolting prejudice !! 🤓🎱

53-47

Perhaps if the house vote were more diverse we could expect the same senate?

Seems the house dems got smacked around a bit.....


No way they get 67 senate votes.

The house dems are wasting everyone's time and resources.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hakeem plays the race card .. //and// *fails* !!


Horrible. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries Called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Numerous Times – KKK Trump (VIDEO)

Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries blathered on for over an hour on Tuesday night in the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Jeffries has repeatedly called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hakeem has used this line to describe the American President numerous times.

🤓 🎱

It is simply the only trick they taught him.
It has worked for him so far apparently.
Not this time.
Pathetic race hustlers.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne Falling for media folly I see how the majority get their news from the boob tube,so as far as they are concerned that are dealing with the truth,but in reality the powers to be are waiting till the US is destroyed by several series of tsunami's quakes volcanoes,I grew up listening to idiots from south,NY etc,Calif is going to fall into the ocean,look at a map of the US the whole country from one side to another was destroyed,the day is near little over a year as history repeats

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hakeem plays the race card .. //and// *fails* !!


Horrible. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries Called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Numerous Times – KKK Trump (VIDEO)

Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries blathered on for over an hour on Tuesday night in the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Jeffries has repeatedly called President Trump the “Grand Wizard” of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hakeem has used this line to describe the American President numerous times.

🤓 🎱

It is simply the only trick they taught him.
It has worked for him so far apparently.
Not this time.
Pathetic race hustlers.

I'd like to see photos of Hakeem Jeffries district. When President Trump put the spot-light on Elijah Cummings Baltimore district (and the huge rats), people started cleaning it up. Cummings also funneled millions of tax dollars to his wife's shell charity.