Step By Step On How To Fake An Impeachment

[lemmiwinx]

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.

Trump? He's regular guy trying to navigate a world of pompous buttwipes. I'm surprised he hasn't taken a swing at one of those Euroweenies he's forced to meet with.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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!

Yes, that's what impeachment is for: abuse of power and the office.

You seem REALLY confused about all this.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trump? He's regular guy trying to navigate a world of pompous buttwipes. I'm surprised he hasn't taken a swing at one of those Euroweenies he's forced to meet with.

He's a lifelong documented criminal with long mob affiliations and has a known mob associate, Lev Parnas, on his legal time.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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

1. DOJ/OLC doesn’t enact laws.
2. The DOJ opinion, written in May ‘19, was an excuse for preventing Don McGahn from testifying in front of Congress.

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

All of the people subpoenaed were/are “administrative individuals”. Some bravely disobeyed Trump’s illegal order to not comply, and others abided, happily.

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.

Again, Congress has no duty to play obstructionist games.

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

What part of “nearly mirrored” do you not understand.

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.

The only thing fake is your denial of the facts.

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

Conviction comes before removal, and it’s not my job to do either.

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.

Come out of your dream world. There are witnesses. Trump is blocking them.

All they have done is guarantee his reelection. We so much appreciate the effort.

:lamo Sure.

 

[Condor060]

1. DOJ/OLC doesn’t enact laws.
2. The DOJ opinion, written in May ‘19, was an excuse for preventing Don McGahn from testifying in front of Congress.

Its called Executive Privilege. its time you just got over it.

Again, Congress has no duty to play obstructionist games.

So they move on without a single witness that can testify? Yeah, smooth move.

What part of “nearly mirrored” do you not understand.

So you admit that this was the first hearing in history where the opposing party was not allowed to call their own witnesses or have a minority day.

Come out of your dream world. There are witnesses. Trump is blocking them.

Oh, Now I get it. You are one of those people who thought Pelosi and here Dumbocrats would be able to walk into a Senate trial and call any witness they wanted too.

Why am I not surprised. So for the those who are not privileged with the knowledge of the rules of evidence and testimony practiced in every courtroom in the country, the Senate is empaneled to here the evidence of the accuser and vote on such evidence. Thats all they do. They do not engage in investigations or clean up any mess brought to the court. They just listen and vote.

The accuser will provide the Articles of Impeachment that has all of the charges to be voted on. Now the accuser will provide their evidence and witnesses to be heard.

If all of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses, they won't be allowed to testify under the federal rules of evidence and testimony. This isn't a hearing, its a federal court presided over by the Chief Justice.

If they had witnesses that could testify, the accused may (at his own discretion) provide his own witnesses for his defense and as rebuttal to the witnesses of the accuser.

If there are no witnesses provided by the accuser, then there are not witnesses to rebut. Hence why McConnell said he wasn't putting up any witnesses.

But you are of the common few who think the accuser can walk into the court and start calling anyone they want to the stand. Sorry for your confusion but that only works in Liberal unicorn land and no court (including the Senate) is going to continue your botched investigation or provide you with witnesses when you can't even provide your own.

This will be over as soon as it starts. And you can thank your mighty Liberal warriors for filling your head with sugar plums. This isn't (and will never be) Schity Schiffs kangaroo court.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

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.

All of the parts of this post are incorrect.

The Senate is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence - the Senate will pass their own rules package that will govern procedure and evidence.

None of the witness testimony in the House meets the legal definition of hearsay, or meets one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In other words, all of the testimony given in the House would be admissible at trial.

 

[Condor060]

All of the parts of this post are incorrect.

The Senate is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence - the Senate will pass their own rules package that will govern procedure and evidence.

None of the witness testimony in the House meets the legal definition of hearsay, or meets one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In other words, all of the testimony given in the House would be admissible at trial.

You have no clue what so ever what you are prescribing. I suggest you read the link and then try again.

Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 69 - Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You have no clue what so ever what you are prescribing. I suggest you read the link and then try again.

Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 69 - Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial

The Senate is not bound by rules the House adopted for an impeachment 150 years ago.

Hind's Precedents is a history book, not a rule book.

 

[Condor060]

The Senate is not bound by rules the House adopted for an impeachment 150 years ago.

Hind's Precedents is a history book, not a rule book.

McConnell has already told Pelosi he has the votes to govern the trial and he has decided to follow the rules of the 1999 trial of Clinton. It will be up to the Senate to determine if witnesses are allowed to testify. I don't think Pelosi is going to have much luck trying to get those 17 hearsay witnesses to testify

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

McConnell has already told Pelosi he has the votes to govern the trial and he has decided to follow the rules of the 1999 trial of Clinton. It will be up to the Senate to determine if witnesses are allowed to testify. I don't think Pelosi is going to have much luck trying to get those 17 hearsay witnesses to testify

We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

Under the Clinton rules, both sides can call witnesses.

It took more than half of the semester to cover how the "hearsay" rule works, so I don't expect that I can explain it on a message board. But if you really want to learn, Google can help.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Its called Executive Privilege. its time you just got over it.



So they move on without a single witness that can testify? Yeah, smooth move.




So you admit that this was the first hearing in history where the opposing party was not allowed to call their own witnesses or have a minority day.



Oh, Now I get it. You are one of those people who thought Pelosi and here Dumbocrats would be able to walk into a Senate trial and call any witness they wanted too.

Why am I not surprised. So for the those who are not privileged with the knowledge of the rules of evidence and testimony practiced in every courtroom in the country, the Senate is empaneled to here the evidence of the accuser and vote on such evidence. Thats all they do. They do not engage in investigations or clean up any mess brought to the court. They just listen and vote.

The accuser will provide the Articles of Impeachment that has all of the charges to be voted on. Now the accuser will provide their evidence and witnesses to be heard.

If all of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses, they won't be allowed to testify under the federal rules of evidence and testimony. This isn't a hearing, its a federal court presided over by the Chief Justice.

If they had witnesses that could testify, the accused may (at his own discretion) provide his own witnesses for his defense and as rebuttal to the witnesses of the accuser.

If there are no witnesses provided by the accuser, then there are not witnesses to rebut. Hence why McConnell said he wasn't putting up any witnesses.

But you are of the common few who think the accuser can walk into the court and start calling anyone they want to the stand. Sorry for your confusion but that only works in Liberal unicorn land and no court (including the Senate) is going to continue your botched investigation or provide you with witnesses when you can't even provide your own.

This will be over as soon as it starts. And you can thank your mighty Liberal warriors for filling your head with sugar plums. This isn't (and will never be) Schity Schiffs kangaroo court.

^^ Good rant. :applaud

Because 95% of your post is foolish/ignorant hyper partisan hyperbole, I won’t waste my time responding to it.

Regarding “executive privilege” you’re wrong, again. Even after being given the actual facts.

And as others have already pointed out to you that you’re wrong about the rules of evidence, there’s no need to waste time on that either.

As usual, you have really embarrassed yourself.

 

[joko104]

Nancy Pelosi:


We now know that was a lie.

Now on to how to fake an impeachment

1. Schiff opens the hearing with his Soprano version of the call.
2. Democrats hold depositions behind closed doors to weed out testimony they don't want the public to hear
3. Democrats refuse all testimony in opposition of their agenda
4. Then Schiff leaks out cherry picked parts to the media
5. Democrats refuse all Republican witnesses
6. Democrats refuse to allow Republican minority day
7. Schiff secretly gets a subpoena to get political opponents phone metadata (not conversations) and releases it to the media with his guess as to what those calls contain
8. Every witness provided by Democrats testify under oath during Republican questioning they have no knowledge of any bribery, quid pro quo or any other impeachable crimes. They all state they are testifying to what they presume was happening.
9. Democrats refuse to subpoena any Republican witnesses to have a court order Trumps witnesses to the hearing because this is a matter of national security and we are in an emergency situation and time is of the essence.

Now, without a single witness who can testify in court, they vote for articles of impeachment without a single Republican vote

Knowing they can't host any witnesses in a Senate trial, and while we are under this national security emergency, Pelosi refuses to provide the articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Pelosi tries to renegotiate the rules of evidence and witness testimony with McConnell to allow her hearsay witnesses. McConnell says no. The rules of evidence and testimony will be the same as every court room in the country like its been from the beginning of time.

Pelosi wants to call defendant witness because she can't call her own. McConnell says no.

Its not the job of the Senate to do the Democrats Impeachment investigation. The Senate trial is only there to hear the articles and the evidence to support those articles. Pelosi doesn't have any witnesses or evidence to support the articles. Which means the articles aren't worth the paper they are written on.

In what court room setting does a defendant provide witnesses for their defense when there are no witnesses who can testify for the prosecution. Never in the history of any court room has this ever happened and it isn't going to happen now.

McConnell tells Pelosi, since she has no witnesses to provide, he isn't calling witnesses either.

This is the legacy Democrats are providing for their party. Only an idiot would attempt an impeachment after

1. Falling on their faces from the Mueller debacle
2. Without a single witness who can testify
3. With only Democrat votes
4. Knowing they will never get a conviction

This isn't an impeachment. This is desperation from a party that has no other options.

It was pure police-state political corruption demonstrating the true level of hatred the Democratic Party and Democrats in the House have for due process, rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. This was straight out of the Fascist Playbook.

 

[Condor060]

^^ Good rant. :applaud

Because 95% of your post is foolish/ignorant hyper partisan hyperbole, I won’t waste my time responding to it.

Regarding “executive privilege” you’re wrong, again. Even after being given the actual facts.

And as others have already pointed out to you that you’re wrong about the rules of evidence, there’s no need to waste time on that either.

As usual, you have really embarrassed yourself.

We told you what would happen with Kavanaugh's Confirmation,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with Fords testimony
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Emoluments clause claims
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the subpoenaed Trump tax returns
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen on the border
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Mueller report,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Whistle Blower
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Nadler hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Schiff's hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you that not one single Republican would vote for Impeachment in the House
but you wouldn't listen

50 Forensic FBI agents, 2 dozen CIA Officials, 17 Attorneys, and 2500 witnesses told you there was no collusion
buy you wouldn't listen

Now, you say Trump is guilty but when Trump is acquitted, which is a forgone conclusion,
the only possible way for your theory to be correct is

Barr, Mulvaney, Pompeo, (because they say no crime exist)
the DOJ, the FBI, (because they say no crime exist)
every Republican in the Senate, (because they say no crime exist)
every republican in the House, (because they say no crime exist)
and 63 million people all have to be involved in a mass conspiracy, a cult as you call it.

Aren't we starting to see a pattern here?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We told you what would happen with Kavanaugh's Confirmation,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with Fords testimony
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Emoluments clause claims
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the subpoenaed Trump tax returns
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen on the border
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Mueller report,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Whistle Blower
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Nadler hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Schiff's hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you that not one single Republican would vote for Impeachment in the House
but you wouldn't listen

50 Forensic FBI agents, 2 dozen CIA Officials, 17 Attorneys, and 2500 witnesses told you there was no collusion
buy you wouldn't listen

Now, you say Trump is guilty but when Trump is acquitted, which is a forgone conclusion,
the only possible way for your theory to be correct is

Barr, Mulvaney, Pompeo, (because they say no crime exist)
the DOJ, the FBI, (because they say no crime exist)
every Republican in the Senate, (because they say no crime exist)
every republican in the House, (because they say no crime exist)
and 63 million people all have to be involved in a mass conspiracy, a cult as you call it.

Aren't we starting to see a pattern here?

Absolutely. A pattern of Trump lies, failures, backfires, and criminality. And still Trumpsters worship him. :doh

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It was pure police-state political corruption demonstrating the true level of hatred the Democratic Party and Democrats in the House have for due process, rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. This was straight out of the Fascist Playbook.

Looks like Condor has found a soul mate. :kissy:

 

[Condor060]

Absolutely. A pattern of Trump lies, failures, backfires, and criminality. And still Trumpsters worship him. :doh

(Hint) it isn't Trump with egg on his face.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

(Hint) it isn't Trump with egg on his face.

Trump and his sycophants/supporters, don’t just have egg on their faces, they have the “Grand Slam” all over their faces. :lamo

 

[Condor060]

Trump and his sycophants/supporters, don’t just have egg on their faces, they have the “Grand Slam” all over their faces.

The historical record speaks for itself. Ignore it at your own peril. Voters won't.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The historical record speaks for itself. Ignore it at your own peril. Voters won't.

Yes, Trump’s record does speak for itself. Remember what happened on November 6th, 2018?

Here’s a clue;


See you this November. :mrgreen:

 

[Condor060]

Yes, Trump’s record does speak for itself. Remember what happened on November 6th, 2018?

See you this November. :mrgreen:

You are touting something that happens in just about every administration as your evidence of what will happen in 2020?

This is all you have?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You are touting something that happens in just about every administration as your evidence of what will happen in 2020?

This is all you have?

There’s plenty more, but that’s not the point.

You posted a long diatribe of supposed Dem failures that, if true, could not reasonably result in that party taking back Congress, in a big way, but they did.

Time for Trumpsters to re-evaluate their definition of “winning”.

 

[Condor060]

There’s plenty more, but that’s not the point.

You posted a long diatribe of supposed Dem failures that, if true, could not reasonably result in that party taking back Congress, in a big way, but they did.

Time for Trumpsters to re-evaluate their definition of “winning”.

I gave you a list that you couldn't even dispute but we are all just going to forget all that and believe Democrats? Way too late for that.

The track record stands for itself no matter how much you want to cry about it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I gave you a list that you couldn't even dispute but we are all just going to forget all that ....

You mean this post/list?

We told you what would happen with Kavanaugh's Confirmation,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with Fords testimony
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Emoluments clause claims
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the subpoenaed Trump tax returns
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen on the border
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Mueller report,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Whistle Blower
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Nadler hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you what would happen with the Schiff's hearings,
but you wouldn't listen

We told you that not one single Republican would vote for Impeachment in the House
but you wouldn't listen

50 Forensic FBI agents, 2 dozen CIA Officials, 17 Attorneys, and 2500 witnesses told you there was no collusion
buy you wouldn't listen

Now, you say Trump is guilty but when Trump is acquitted, which is a forgone conclusion,
the only possible way for your theory to be correct is

Barr, Mulvaney, Pompeo, (because they say no crime exist)
the DOJ, the FBI, (because they say no crime exist)
every Republican in the Senate, (because they say no crime exist)
every republican in the House, (because they say no crime exist)
and 63 million people all have to be involved in a mass conspiracy, a cult as you call it.

Aren't we starting to see a pattern here?

Hard to believe you actually expected it to be treated as anything more than the silly, nonsensical, Trumpster tantrum that it is.

 

[Condor060]

You mean this post/list?

Hard to believe you actually expected it to be treated as anything more than the silly, nonsensical, Trumpster tantrum that it is.

I guess with that many failures, I wouldn't want to tackle them either. Don't blame ya.