So you again establish you know not of what you speak and do not pay attention to the information you are given. Figures.Not one thing you said there changes the reality that witnesses were barred in the Senate trial. Not one thing.
No. I do not have to, nor will I excuse you for not knowing relevant and factual information that has been in the public sphere and destroys your nonsense.As to McConnell quote. You will have to excuse me [...]
You are spewing nonsense.All 15 impeachment trial - judicial and presidential - in our history have had witnesses. The precedent was broken with the Trump trial and it is a stain forever on justice and the Senate,
The House managers WERE NOT allowed to call any witnesses in the Senate Trial and the Senate voted to prohibit them.
Not guilty is not a finding of innocence. That is simply the hard cold facts.
:2rofll:
You are making no sense. I am not arguing both sides. I do not even know where you get that absurd claim other than you want us to forget your bad error asserting about the FISA courts .
Of course it is a legal event. And of course it is political as it involves politicians. The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive. This is NOT a binary choice.
People who understand how government works know the reality of it.
And you should learn the difference between an acquittal and a jury finding the accused as INNOCENT. There was plenty of evidence and jury finding that Trump was guilty. The 2/3 number was not achieved but there was plenty of feeling that he was guilty. Heck, even Republicans who voted to acquit him admitted he had done wrong.
So you again establish you know not of what you speak and do not pay attention to the information you are given. Figures.
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.1. Witness testimony was heard by video.
2. The Senate has no obligation to hear from witnesses that the House didn't.
No. I do not have to, nor will I excuse you for not knowing relevant and factual information that has been in the public sphere and destroys your nonsense.
They have not had witnesses in this manner. See quote.
But the 15 people who faced a full trial in the Senate all saw witnesses called.
We rate this claim True.
I like the way that turned out. Schiff refused to hear the pleas from republicans in the House and then he gets similarly snubbed in the Senate. Sometimes what goes around comes around.
Better than that NOT GUILTY is also not a finding of guilt.
That's pretty much how jury nullification works.
Not that you will ever admit the dishonest arguments but you shift your argument from one to the other relentlessly. But, it doesn't matter. Trump was acquitted, per the Senate declaration of the vote. Its burns, doesn't it?
Actually it is how rabid partisan politics works when Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate and he is trying to protect his superior.
Still confusing statements of fact with personal insults. Figures.Leading off with a personal insult. That already puts you in a very strong intellectual position.
Irrelevant to the point made. The Senate heard from witnesses by video. (That is called having witnesses.)And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
Nothing came to light after the fact.And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.
iLOL What a stupid reply in regards to the point made. No one said I didn't have an obligation to support what I quote.When someone provides a quote in debate it is their 100% complete and total obligation to provide a source for it. You did NOT do this. It was your failure as a debater.
Wrong.The McConnell statement is a lie.
So many false claims. iLOL Just you being wrong as usual.You insulting me and failing to observe proper debate protocols does not make your argument which is based solely on denial of reality and falling for partisan lies.
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.
L
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.
When someone provides a quote in debate it is their 100% complete and total obligation to provide a source for it. You did NOT do this. It was your failure as a debater.
The McConnell statement is a lie. And you fell for it because of political affiliation. All 15 previous impeachment trials before the Senate had witnesses.
PolitiFact | Yes, every past impeachment trial included witnesses. Baldwin hits mark with Trump-related claim
You insulting me and failing to observe proper debate protocols does not make your argument which is based solely on denial of reality and falling for partisan lies.
And it became the first impeachment trial in the Senate that did not have witnesses. So much for the first 15 and precedent.
48 Senators did make a finding of guilt. But the jury was fixed and rigged to acquit Trump and protect him from further incriminating testimony.
Actually it is how rabid partisan politics works when Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate and he is trying to protect his superior.
Abuse of power and then trying to cover it up by thwarting the investigations of Congress were the crimes.
Nah, that's what you tell yourself so you can keep crying about it. It was all political theatre. Democrats are scared out of their minds Trump will win 4 more years.
Still confusing statements of fact with personal insults.
Schiff refused to allow republicans to call witnesses in the House.
For example, Schiff refused to allow Vindman to name the name of one of the several people he leaked the call to because Schiff did not want the name of the whistleblower outed. We know from that the whistleblower was not Vindman's brother, who was named, nor was it Eisenberg, who was also named. It was the fact that Vindman and Schiff protected the one name to protect the whistleblower's identity that proved both Vindman and Schiff knew who the whistleblower was and that Vindman is the one who fed to the whistleblower the crapped up opinionated 3rd hand account of the phone call.
Schiff could have subpoenaed Bolton in the House but he refused. He also could have subpoenaed the whistleblower but he refused. How are those witnesses to be heard if Schiff will not allow them to testify? They cannot be heard.
The House impeachment was not like other impeachments in history. Schiff suspended due process. He did not allow the defense to call witnesses. He did not allow the republicans to cross examine his witnesses thoroughly. He did not allow the defendant counsel representation or the opportunity to defend himself against lying testimony of biased witnesses. There was absolutely no House vote authorizing Schiff to conduct impeachment hearings in the intelligence committee instead of the traditional judiciary committee, and the entire process was political and one-sided from beginning to end.
And sobbing Schiff wants now to complain about the lack of fairness? What a moron.
What are you saying, that a minority of jurors prove a defendant is guilty by their minority opinion? Does that not make Roe vs Wade an example also since a minority of justices declared that abortion should be illegal?
Schiff in the House is pulling out all the stops, dismissing due process, suspending the rights of the accused, refusing key witnesses from testifying and then declaring Trump guilty by accusation. That makes him a servant of the devil if McConnell is supposedly serving only the President by refusing to follow the new perverted House rules and process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?