Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses though

---

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not. i know the white house ignored several subpoenas served by the house.

what the house should have done was go to court to try to enforce the subpoenas, but i'm sure they wanted this all wrapped up by the election and going to court could have taken years.

the problem with the dems' approach is what we're seeing now. the republicans control the senate and the democrats should have realized there was a chance the senate would just refuse to call anyone.

note that this is entirely semantics as trump could admit to everything the democrats are alleging and he would have no chance of being convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

This is correct, but if we are being honest he didn’t want to participate. Pleading the 5th in his own way.

---

You both are 100% wrong. The impeachment is like an indictment, meant to determine whether a trial should be conducted. That trial should open the door for more evidence to be presented if it becomes available. To say otherwise with a straight face indicates that you are either ignorant of these facts or a bald faced liar. Which is it?

While bringing the House’s impeachment case in the Senate, Nadler correctly calls out the GOP for trying to hide the damning evidence against Trump from being shown to the public in this trial’s proceedings. And the GOP expresses outrage at being appropriately accused as such on national television.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...102180?cid=apn

A bucket of crocodile tears for the criminal president-protecting GOP senators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not.

---

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not.

---

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

---

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

TRAINWRECKS

Embedded Tweet

---

You could just as easily say "Have a lot of evidence to enter" vs. "You don't need to prepare anything when you're not even planning to listen."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

That's what the trial is for, but the Republicans aren't allowing any witnesses.

---

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses though

---

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

Trump ordered a whole bunch of people not to testify.

The House Democrats really should have gone through the courts to force them to testify.

The Impeachment managers should also let Trump call any witness he wants. The Bidens or whoever. He is entitled to put on the defense his lawyers want to put on. The Bidens are irrelevant to this case but if they think their best defense is "whataboutism" then let them cast their lot.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a1&oe=5E9AA1ED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

Trump ordered a whole bunch of people not to testify.

The House Democrats really should have gone through the courts to force them to testify.

The Impeachment managers should also let Trump call any witness he wants. The Bidens or whoever. He is entitled to put on the defense his lawyers want to put on. The Bidens are irrelevant to this case but if they think their best defense is "whataboutism" then let them cast their lot.

---

i think the DNC is so scared of bernie winning that they are willing to let this whole fucking trial turn to fucking dust rather than risk sullying biden's good name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

---

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

---

you seem to have more faith in politicians doing the right thing than me. there was never any chance that republicans would vote trump out, regardless of the evidence.

i'm 100% serious that trump could admit to holding up aid to score political points and he would not be convicted. (dems would probably protect a democrat president the same way.)

i mean, we've already heard people testify that trump would only meet with ukraine's president and deliver military aid if ukraine announced an investigation into the bidens. we also know that the aid was, in fact, held up, and that it was only released after the whistleblower complained. there were news reports that bolton was horrified by this "drug deal."

there isn't even a plausible counter narrative to what the dems are arguing. are we to believe that trump was genuinely interested in rooting out ukrainian corruption (and only ukrainian corruption -- no other country) with the secret help of....... rudy giuliani?

there's a reason no one has ever defended trump on the facts. the republicans are only: 1) attacking the process; or 2) suggesting that even if trump did what's alleged, it's not impeachable.

i totally disagree but i guess i can at least understand the legal argument that you need an actual crime before impeaching. that logic leads to ridiculous results like what we're seeing today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

This is correct, but if we are being honest he didn’t want to participate. Pleading the 5th in his own way.

---

No, Trump's lawyers wanted to attend, participate, cross-examine, and call witnesses. They were not permitted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

---

No, your analogy is incorrect.

Educate yourselves:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Educate yourselves:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

---

Mark Levin is a right wing partisan hack with the credibility of a steaming pile of horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

---

i totally disagree but i guess i can at least understand the legal argument that you need an actual crime before impeaching. that logic leads to ridiculous results like what we're seeing today.

---

That’s why they should have had bribery as one of the charges as it’s undoubtedly a high crime. As is, you have abuse of power which can debated as a high crime but it’s not clear cut. Then you have obstruction of Congress which is lol. If they had subpoenaed Bolton and the courts ruled he had to testify but Trump wouldn’t let him then that would maybe to an argument of obstruction of Congress but this obviously didn’t happen.

WELP, LOOKS LIKE ITS GONNA BE SCHIFF AFTER MIDNIGHT AGAIN



:noose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

WELP, LOOKS LIKE ITS GONNA BE SCHIFF AFTER MIDNIGHT AGAIN



:noose

---

feels great to be wrong. maybe atine is onto something LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

---

No, your analogy is incorrect.

---

I assure you it is correct.

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/...mpeachment.jpg