• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Step By Step On How To Fake An Impeachment

Every witness who testified to house confirmed Trumps guilty.

Wrong, Every witness that testified at the hearings stated under oath during Republican questioning they have no knowledge of any bribery or any quid pro quo. They were only testifying to what they presumed happened. Thats why there are no charges for bribery and thats why none of them can testify in a real court room.

They are all hearsay witnesses

Trump's and his people's own tweets and words proved his guilty.

Like what

Trump and republicans offered not a single defense.

Schiff refused all witnesses requested by Republicans and refused to allow them their minority day.
 
A Senate trial is held under the very same rules of evidence and testimony every other court room in the country adheres too.

Democrats don't have a single witness who can testify because they are all hearsay witnesses, not allowed.

This is why Pelosi refused to turn over the artilces. She wanted McConnell to change the rules to allow her witnesses. McConnell said no.

Since Pelosi has no witnesses that can testify, McConnell stated he wasn't bringing any witnesses either. Why would you offer witnesses for the defense when there are no witnesses testifying for the prosecution? You don't.

LOL! "Everyone was in the loop".

Dems have firsthand witnesses and twump is trying to prevent at least 12 others from testifying.

Why be so dishonest? What's the point?
 
Why don't Republicans want direct witnesses?

Not really sure what you mean. If you mean witnesses for the defense, nobody in court room history would ever put up witnesses if there are no witnesses to rebut.

Why would you do that? Its up to the prosecution to make their case. If they have no witnesses to testify, the case is dismissed.

Thats what Democrats have done. Provided articles of impeachment without a single witness who can testify. They know this and did it anyway.

If you were charged with a crime, and the first day of the trial the judge ask the prosecution to provide their witnesses and they don't have any, the case gets dismissed.

Nobody is required to prove their innocence when there are no witnesses making an accusation
 
Democrats don't have a single witness that can be called to support their articles and you call the Senate a sham?
:lamo You’re talking pure bull**** and you know it. There are several witnesses (and many documents) the Dems would’ve loved to had at the impeachment hearings, but the unindicted-coconspirator-in-Chief refused all requests for documents and forbade any official from testifying. Granted, a few brave and honorable career officials defied that order, but the one’s with direct/first hand knowledge of Trump’s criminal acts didn’t.

Now, there’s virtually no chance McConnell will allow them testify at Trump’s trial because he knows their testimonies would sink Trump’s presidency.
 
18 U.S.C. § 1503 for Obstruction of Justice, and 25 CFR § 11.448. This isn't hard.

it was obstruction of congress that they claimed. and that was before any court stated he had to comply with congressional demands. were those two code sections cited in the articles of impeachment
 
:lamo You’re talking pure bull**** and you know it. There are several witnesses (and many documents) the Dems would’ve loved to had at the impeachment hearings, but the unindicted-coconspirator-in-Chief refused all requests for documents and forbade any official from testifying.

Its called Executive Privilege and has been supported by the OLC and the DOJ for over 20 years. look it up.

No president or his staff is required to testify in Congressional hearings. I'm sorry you just found that out.

But Democrats had the opportunity to apply for exceptions and have some of these people testify by limiting their questions to the case at hand. Democrats decided that our national security was in immediate danger and this had to move right away.

Right up until they received their articles and all of a sudden we didn't have a national security in immediate danger any more. We had all the time in the world.

Now, there’s virtually no chance McConnell will allow them testify at Trump’s trial because he knows their testimonies would sink Trump’s presidency.

If you don't have any witnesses for the prosecution, you don't need to provide any witnesses for the defense. Thats why McConnell stated he wasn't bringing forward any witnesses.

Additionally, it isn't the Senate job to investigate anything. All they are there to do is hear the evidence and vote. They aren't there to provide witnesses because the Democrats don't have any and didn't do there job properly. They offered articles without evidence or witnesses and they will get a ruling that shows that.
 
it was obstruction of congress that they claimed.

Correct, my mistake but a mistake that is at best a semantic.

and that was before any court stated he had to comply with congressional demands.

No, not even true. Not even remotely close to reality.


were those two code sections cited in the articles of impeachment

Yes they are, the Articles of Impeachment themselves even cite instances of how and when President Trump violating the law.
 
Correct, my mistake but a mistake that is at best a semantic.



No, not even true. Not even remotely close to reality.




Yes they are, the Articles of Impeachment themselves even cite instances of how and when President Trump violating the law.
they never cited any federal statute or code section that he allegedly violated, did they?
 
they never cited any federal statute or code section that he allegedly violated, did they?

Except they did, each violation is the title of each Article. Are you intentionally being obtuse?
 
Its called Executive Privilege and has been supported by the OLC and the DOJ for over 20 years. look it up.

No president or his staff is required to testify in Congressional hearings. I'm sorry you just found that out.
Actually, “Executive Privilege” has been recognized much longer than 20 years, and I won’t bother personally educating you on it's recognized legal scope/limits (of which Trump has exceeded on numerous occasions) Instead, I’ll provide you with a study reference; The Limits of Executive Privilege

If you don't have any witnesses for the prosecution, you don't need to provide any witnesses for the defense. Thats why McConnell stated he wasn't bringing forward any witnesses.
Again, the Dems don’t have witnesses because Trump refuses to follow precedent and the law. McConnell knows that.
 
Actually, “Executive Privilege” has been recognized much longer than 20 years, and I won’t bother personally educating you on it's recognized legal scope/limits (of which Trump has exceeded on numerous occasions) Instead, I’ll provide you with a study reference; The Limits of Executive Privilege

I think I will just go with the Department of Justice if its all the same to you.

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel.

Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice


Again, the Dems don’t have witnesses because Trump refuses to follow precedent and the law. McConnell knows that.

Democrats don't have any witnesses because Democrats decided our national security was at risk and this had to happen right away instead of sending out a single subpoena and having a judge allow the witnesses to testify on a limited bases only concerning the case.

You don't get to call 17 hearsay witnesses, refuse ANY Republican congressman requested witnesses, refuse Republicans their minority day, and refuse to send out any subpoenas to any Republicans and then turn around and call it Republicans fault.

This is idiocy at its finest.
 
If this turns out to be a bad political decision for Pelosi, something I doubt, it will not be because of the wishes of the American People - but rather due to the vagaries of the Electorate College.

In 2016 Trump lost the People, but won the Electoral College. Currently in impeachment matters he has again lost the American People - even if by a scant margin. And it looks like our wishes our going to be nullified by the States once more - this time by the Senate! And you know what? It's very possible this upcoming election becomes another example of the Electoral College over-ruling us again! So, why is there so much unrest in the country? Duh!

Reference: (538.com) Do Americans Support Removing Trump From Office?

It was a bad political decision for Pelosi when she publicly claimed she was moving on impeachment before she even read the whistle blower report

It was a bad political decision to refuse to allow opposing witnesses in the hearings

It was a bad political decision to refuse Republicans their minority day

It was a bad political decision for Schiff to secretly subpoena the metadata of political opponents phones and release it to the media with his own version of what these calls said.

It was a bad political decision to host articles of Impeachment without a single witness who can testify in a Senate trial

It was a bad political decision to host Articles of Impeachment without a single Republican vote

This has nothing to do the electoral college. Its just bad political decisions

And Democrats will pay dearly for this in 2020
 
I think I will just go with the Department of Justice if its all the same to you.
Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice[/url

Par for the course. You’re provided with settled law facts (including links to cases), but choose an opinion from Barr’s DOJ.

Democrats don't have any witnesses because Democrats decided our national security was at risk and this had to happen right away instead of sending out a single subpoena and having a judge allow the witnesses to testify on a limited bases only concerning the case.
First, roughly two dozen subpoena’s were issued. [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3912226002
And second, Congress has no responsibility to play waiting games with an obstructing administration (refer to my previous link regarding executive privilege).

You don't get to call 17 hearsay witnesses, refuse ANY Republican congressman requested witnesses, refuse Republicans their minority day, and refuse to send out any subpoenas to any Republicans and then turn around and call it Republicans fault.
The process followed by Congress in Trump’s impeachment nearly mirrored the Republican process when they impeached Clinton.
Fact Check: How Trump Impeachment Inquiry Tracks With Nixon, Clinton : NPR
Did you whine about how he was treated back then?

This is idiocy at its finest.
Yep, and we know who the idiots are.
98BD9E56-6A8A-499E-A0D9-E9CB3C6C9E9D.jpg
 
Par for the course. You’re provided with settled law facts (including links to cases), but choose an opinion from Barr’s DOJ.

Heres a heads up for you. The laws of the OLC and the DOJ have existed for over 20 years. They weren't provided by Barr. They were in place decades before Barr worked for Trump.

Try again

First, roughly two dozen subpoena’s were issued. Trump impeachment inquiry: Who has been subpoenaed?
And second, Congress has no responsibility to play waiting games with an obstructing administration (refer to my previous link regarding executive privilege).

They sent subpoenas for administrative individuals which were complied with. They sent letters to Pompeo, Pence, Giuliani, and Mulvaney.

Congress can do what ever Congress wants to do. They decided not to get a court order to have Pompeo, Pence, Giuliani, and Mulvaney to comply on a limited basis to only testify to the case at hand. So they move forward at their own peril.


The process followed by Congress in Trump’s impeachment nearly mirrored the Republican process when they impeached Clinton.

Fact Check: How Trump Impeachment Inquiry Tracks With Nixon, Clinton : NPR
Did you whine about how he was treated back then?

Now you're just making BS up. If you want to spin your wheels trying to find if
Democrats were not allowed any of their own witnesses
Democrats were not allowed their minority day

Then help yourself. Your claim doesn't exist. Never did.

But you can't beat the facts. Democrats don't have a single witness who can testify which means their fake articles of impeachment aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You are not going to remove Trump and you're not going to get a conviction.

And all Democrats have done is show the world their own stupidity of providing Articles that don't have a single witness, Articles that can never get a conviction right after they spent 3 years trying to prove Trump was a planted Russian agent.

All they have done is guarantee his reelection. We so much appreciate the effort.
 
We've already seen how mentally retarded a republican house acts with a democratic president. Twice in fact.

Still, it's always fun to see people fantasizing about impeaching imaginary figures who've committed no imaginary crimes.

Wait people have been beating over the head saying there doesn't have to be a crime to impeach a president. You just have to really, really hate the guy.
 
Wait people have been beating over the head saying there doesn't have to be a crime to impeach a president. You just have to really, really hate the guy.

There is ample evidence that he's been a criminal his entire life and that he's committed felonies while in office.

And, no, there doesn't have to an actual violation of criminal code for something to be a high crime or misdeamnor.

Super basic, ground floor stuff here, m'man.
 
There is ample evidence that he's been a criminal his entire life and that he's committed felonies while in office.

And, no, there doesn't have to an actual violation of criminal code for something to be a high crime or misdeamnor.

Super basic, ground floor stuff here, m'man.

Impeach on then and may every future president be impeached by the party who controls the House of Representatives. It's going to be a bold new future I'm sure the cable news channels are going to love it.
 
Impeach on then and may every future president be impeached by the party who controls the House of Representatives. It's going to be a bold new future I'm sure the cable news channels are going to love it.

No, what you just posted is fantasy land nonsense.

Good luck with your magical thinking.
 
No, what you just posted is fantasy land nonsense.

Good luck with your magical thinking.

Presidents being impeached is fantasy land? I don't see your point it's happening now and they're telling me you don't need a reason to impeach a president.
 
Presidents being impeached is fantasy land? I don't see your point it's happening now and they're telling me you don't need a reason to impeach a president.

They have to abuse the office or commit crimes first. You need a reason to impeach a POTUS.

You seem really confused about all this.
 
except the turds running the impeachment didn't name any crimes

They didn’t witness any crimes. They simply provided assumptions based on their professional diplomatic opinions.

So their testimonies to this day simply remain accusations without any real proof.

Their opinions were based on the fact that Trump did not follow their diplomatic advice... how dare he not listen to their professional diplomatic advice and obey that advice!

My 2 cents Roseann
 
They have to abuse the office or commit crimes first. You need a reason to impeach a POTUS.

You seem really confused about all this.

Oh I see then. They should advise all future American presidents not to abuse their power. Nasty, nasty power abuser you're going to get yourself impeached lol!
 
Oh I see then. They should advise all future American presidents not to abuse their power then. Nasty, nasty power abuser you're going to get yourself impeached lol!

Well duh. If a POTUS is extorting a foreign government to interfere in an American election, as Trump did, they should be impeached. You would really have to hate your country to give a POTUS a pass on that.
 
They didn’t witness any crimes. They simply provided assumptions based on their professional diplomatic opinions.

So their testimonies to this day simply remain accusations without any real proof.

Their opinions were based on the fact that Trump did not follow their diplomatic advice... how dare he not listen to their professional diplomatic advice and obey that advice!

My 2 cents Roseann

Obviously they should hear from Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other people who have first hand information. It's like Americans are too stupid to figure out the most basic procedures of an investigation. No wonder Trump loves his base.

Donald Trump: 'I love the poorly educated' — and they love him
 
Obviously they should hear from Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other people who have first hand information. It's like Americans are too stupid to figure out the most basic procedures of an investigation. No wonder Trump loves his base.

Donald Trump: 'I love the poorly educated' — and they love him

Don’t blame me for their mistake of not using The Judiciary to achieve that goal and the lame excuse they used to skip that solution in order to not hear from those men during their Impeachment process!

I’m going to make a uneducated guess that Trump is just lovin’ their stupid mistake and may have put them on a special list Titled: “Poorly Educated” list!!! ;):giggle1:

imho Roseann :)
 
Back
Top Bottom