Dem leaders signal they won’t accept Trump acquittal as legitimate

[Dashinka 23,242]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

This is a quote that will haunt American for years to come:

 

": "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

You do realize that politicians regularly do things for both the public interest and to try and get them elected or re-elected.  Politics in general is nothing but quid pro quo’s.  Heck, just look at the impeachment charade.  The Democrats are gambling that this will help them retain the House, possibly retake the Senate and the WH.  They believe it is both in the public interest, and also for political gain.  Now they may not succeed, but who knows, they just might.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Great video.  

 

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Cant understand. The Dem controlled congress had as long as it wanted to call witnesses. They did not allow the defense to call any witness not on their list. They heard 100's of hours of testimony, generated 10's of 1000's of pages of docs. They declared it was open and shut. Sat on it many days. Now they are crying because they cant call more witnesses. Do you normally call witnesses once it's gone to the jury after a sham trial, in which the defense got no right to call witnesses. They have screwed up royally and they know it 

A one brain celled moron could see this for what it is. I don't care if you are MDL or MDR Trump hater or not, it is obvious what it is.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Cant understand. The Dem controlled congress had as long as it wanted to call witnesses. They did not allow the defense to call any witness not on their list. They heard 100's of hours of testimony, generated 10's of 1000's of pages of docs. They declared it was open and shut. Sat on it many days. Now they are crying because they cant call more witnesses. Do you normally call witnesses once it's gone to the jury after a sham trial, in which the defense got no right to call witnesses. They have screwed up royally and they know it 

A one brain celled moron could see this for what it is. I don't care if you are MDL or MDR Trump hater or not, it is obvious what it is.

So this one brain celled moron and 60-75% of the people in this country who wanted to see the evidence must be blind.

 

The house was not performing a trial, that is in the Senate. Before you go to trial in the world of courts, the plaintiff must go before the judge and make the case that there is enough to proceed, that happens in the house.

 

Trump and his lawyers chose not to participate and to block those with first hand knowledge from appearing all through the process.

 

If process of finding out what really happened the judge decides to block evidence from appearing for the defense, that is the breaks and the lawyer objects and appeals. When the lawyer appeals it is on the specific objection, in this case wether Bolton and others should testify. There is no appeal from the Senate, it is up to the people to judge. 

 

 

[Boiler 43,433]

The House is the one which voted on impeachment and sent the case forward, so you are saying they did so without evidence.

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

12 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

So this one brain celled moron and 60-75% of the people in this country who wanted to see the evidence must be blind.

 

The house was not performing a trial, that is in the Senate. Before you go to trial in the world of courts, the plaintiff must go before the judge and make the case that there is enough to proceed, that happens in the house.

 

Trump and his lawyers chose not to participate and to block those with first hand knowledge from appearing all through the process.

 

If process of finding out what really happened the judge decides to block evidence from appearing for the defense, that is the breaks and the lawyer objects and appeals. When the lawyer appeals it is on the specific objection, in this case wether Bolton and others should testify. There is no appeal from the Senate, it is up to the people to judge. 

 

 

wasnt calling you a moron, but Hellen Keller could see this 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

 

Biden argued against witnesses in 1999 impeachment trial memo

[90DayFinancier 910]

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

wasnt calling you a moron, but Hellen Keller could see this 

Poor Helen

[Crazy Cat 39,222]

48 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Trump and his lawyers chose not to participate and to block those with first hand knowledge from appearing all through the process.

As would any person with an IQ above 70......it was then up to the House to send the matter to the SCOTUS....which they declined to do.......then Nadler made the stupid statement that their case was "without ANY doubt"...............and they will pay the price in November.

[90DayFinancier 910]

10 minutes ago, missileman said:

As would any person with an IQ above 70......it was then up to the House to send the matter to the SCOTUS....which they declined to do.......then Nadler made the stupid statement that their case was "without ANY doubt"...............and they will pay the price in November.

Senator Alexander says, they made the case, it "didn't rise to the level"

You and I both know, it would not make it to scotus before 2021.

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by 90DayFinancier

[Crazy Cat 39,222]

6 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Senator Alexander says, they made the case, it "didn't rise to the level"

You and I both know, it would not make it to scotus before 2021.

 

 

 

Actually, SCOTUS could have heard it whenever they wanted to.........

[90DayFinancier 910]

15 minutes ago, missileman said:

Actually, SCOTUS could have heard it whenever they wanted to.........

Well, I am not a lawyer, so you have me there.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

 

Biden argued against witnesses in 1999 impeachment trial memo

But you did hear witnesses: Monica Lewisnky was compelled and the President's sworn deposition was played.

[Crazy Cat 39,222]

9 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Well, I am not a lawyer, so you have me there.

Neither am I....but I heard that earlier in the week..

[Dashinka 23,242]

58 minutes ago, missileman said:

As would any person with an IQ above 70......it was then up to the House to send the matter to the SCOTUS....which they declined to do.......then Nadler made the stupid statement that their case was "without ANY doubt"...............and they will pay the price in November.

It wasn’t just Nadler saying that before the Senate trial started.