Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

[VanceMack]

How did the house vote to impeach if they didnt have adequate evidence? Is it POSSIBLE that the rat party voted out of their bias and hatred?

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, the witnesses and documents that the House investigated, nothing more, nothing less.

Whose fault is it, if the House did not proceed with trying to get all the witnesses it wanted and documents?

You agreed that the House tried.

 

[sjmay]

You agreed that the House tried.

No actually, I don't agree.

I think I would agree if they had followed through the way the system is designed, then I would agree.

But they asked, and before it was to be heard, they withdrew their ask, that's not trying to me.

 

[Moot]

You realize that there were 3 previous impeachment inquiries that failed, and that SEVERAL House Democrats vowed to impeach him right? Way before Sept 28th, 2019.

I realize that one or two democrats introducing a resolution for an impeachment and not getting any votes is not an impeachment inquiry.

I also realize that MANY House Republicans vowed to impeach Obama...and none of their numerous impeachment resolutions led to an impeachment inquiry, either.

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia

 

[sjmay]

I realize that one or two democrats introducing a resolution for an impeachment and not getting any votes is not an impeachment inquiry.

I also realize that republicans vowed to impeach Obama...and none of their numerous impeachment resolutions led to impeachment, either.

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia

LMFAO even your source doesn't compute.....seriously you should have read it first....nothing in that list of "efforts to impeach Obama" were efforts to impeach Obama, holy **** man...

 

[Moot]

So **** the The Constitution, when it becomes inconvenient to follow The Constitution.

Well, Trump thinks it's inconvenient...

"The emoluments clause is phoney" - President Trump

The Constitution: “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” - President Trump​

Oh, and don't forget to celebrate "National Trump Loyalty Day" on May 1. The founders would've loved that.

 

[apdst]

Well, Trump thinks it's inconvenient...

"The emoluments clause is phoney" - President Trump

The Constitution: “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” - President Trump​

Oh, and don't forget to celebrate "National Trump Loyalty Day" on May 1. The founders would've loved that.

But...but...Truuuuuuuuump! :lamo

 

[Moot]

LMFAO even your source doesn't compute.....seriously you should have read it first....nothing in that list of "efforts to impeach Obama" were efforts to impeach Obama, holy **** man...

Then neither were the three efforts you mentioned to impeach Trump. Seriously, you should trying thinking before typing if you don't want to look like a lying hypocrite.

 

[Moot]

But...but...Truuuuuuuuump! :lamo

But...but.....whatabout the Constitution!!!

Was it too inconvenient for you to address Trump's violations of the Constitution? :lamo

 

[What if...?]

I didn't see that, can you say who, and quote it? Because if that's the case, then the House should have subpoenaed those records, and fought for them through the courts, why wouldn't they do that? It sounds like gross negligence to me.

The political calculus is dragging it through the courts just leaves pence (maybe) in charge if trump wins.

7-2 supreme court. Lots of unacceptable consequences.

That can't he unwound when a president is removed from office.

(As if that would happen. Trump could he raping a baby while eating its extremities on live TV and the senate wouldn't vote to remove him.)

 

[sjmay]

Then neither were the three efforts you mentioned to impeach Trump. Seriously, you should trying thinking before typing if you don't want to look like a lying hypocrite.

You are WOEFULLY uneducated in this matter,

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump - Wikipedia

First paragraph, there were actual inquires trying to get started.....not conspiracy theories per your link.

 

[sjmay]

The political calculus is dragging it through the courts just leaves pence (maybe) in charge if trump wins.

7-2 supreme court. Lots of unacceptable consequences.

That can't he unwound when a president is removed from office.

(As if that would happen. Trump could he raping a baby while eating its extremities on live TV and the senate wouldn't vote to remove him.)

I see, so the House did it because lots of unacceptable consequences? Interesting I guess....

 

[apdst]

But...but.....whatabout the Constitution!!!

Was it too inconvenient for you to address Trump's violations of the Constitution? :lamo

List them for us. We'll be waiting. Oh and be sure and cite the parts of The Constitution Trump violated.

 

[MTAtech]

H0w can you vote to impeach without that information. If democrats felt that they had a sufficent amount of evidence to impeach, theres no reason to believe they dont have a sufficent amount of evidence to present to the senate.

Are you really arguing that trials should go forward only with the evidence that existed at the time the grand jury votes an indictment. even if additional evidence was available? Because that's what the House impeachment vote is -- an indictment.

Anyone who was really as innocent as they portray themselves would welcome evidence. Only a guilty party would try to withhold evidence from the trial.

 

[Moot]

You are WOEFULLY uneducated in this matter,

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump - Wikipedia

First paragraph, there were actual inquires trying to get started.....not conspiracy theories per your link.

So now you're not only moving the goal posts....but you're using the same source that you just said "doesn't compute" and called a "conspiracy theory" when I used it?

That by definition is just stupid with a big H. I don't know whether to roll my eyes :roll: .....or bust out laughing :lamo

:doh :roll: :lamo

 

[Moot]

List them for us. We'll be waiting. Oh and be sure and cite the parts of The Constitution Trump violated.

That's not necessary, other people have already listed them for us. Violations of the emoluments clause seems to be a biggy...so is violating his oath of office....as is violating the separation of power...

Trump Articles of Impeachment - RootsAction

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...ext-Articles-of-Impeachment-Against-President

Donald Trump has repeatedly violated his oath of office: Reason enough for impeachment | Salon.com

Trump Is Violating the Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union​

 

[CaughtInThe]

Cover up.

As expected.

 

[sjmay]

So now you're not only moving the goal posts....but you're using the same source that you just said "doesn't compute" and called a "conspiracy theory" when I used it?

That by definition is just stupid with a big H. I don't know whether to roll my eyes :roll: .....or bust out laughing :lamo

:doh :roll: :lamo

Not my problem you can't keep up, the source I used actually used impeachment inquiry in it's content, your source, used conspiracy theories, if you can't see the difference, I can't help you, so you mine as well laugh, it's better than the alternative at this point...

 

[Moot]

Not my problem you can't keep up, the source I used actually used impeachment inquiry in it's content, your source, used conspiracy theories, if you can't see the difference, I can't help you, so you mine as well laugh, it's better than the alternative at this point...

It is your problem because you failed to prove your claim that there were "3 previous impeachment inquiries." That's what we were discussing before you moved the goal post to the official House impeachment inquiry that had nothing to do with any of the alleged previous inquiries that you brought up for discussion.

You realize that there were 3 previous impeachment inquiries that failed, and that SEVERAL House Democrats vowed to impeach him right? Way before Sept 28th, 2019.

You do realize that you're the one that can't keep up, sjmay. So enough of your blubbery...go prove "there were 3 impeachment inquiries that failed." And don't use Wikipedia...they're a "conspiracy theory" that "doesn't compute", remember?

 

[Hamish Howl]

We have all of the evidence and witness testimony that the House viewed as sufficient for impeachment. Are you saying that Trump was impeached unfairly?

So what you're saying is that no evidence not presented at an indictment can be used in a trial?

 

[Michael Cole]

Obama was born in Kenya.

Trump said it. I believe it. End of story.

Hunter Biden is corrupt. Joe Biden is corrupt.

Trump said it. I believe it. End of story.

No quid pro quo. I did nothing wrong.

Trump said it. I believe it. End of story.

As a proud weekend warrior lawyer, I hearby exonerate the president of the United States. We don't need no stinkin' witnesses. We don't need no stinkin' documents. We don't need no stinkin' truth. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn't work for us. We work for him!

 

[Atomic Kid]

They are, they are absolutely letting the defendant's laywers submit evidence and witness testimony from the House investigation......what's the problem with that?

The American people knows what trial looks like and thus far they're not seeing one. Bring on witnesses with direct firsthand knowledge of the events in question here. If the President did nothing wrong then he would have nothing to fear from their giving testimony and presenting documents. Would he. That's what the American people want to see happen here. If they don't see that they're going smell a cover up.

 

[sjmay]

It is your problem because you failed to prove your claim that there were "3 previous impeachment inquiries." That's what we were discussing before you moved the goal post to the official House impeachment inquiry that had nothing to do with any of the alleged previous inquiries that you brought up for discussion.



You do realize that you're the one that can't keep up, sjmay. So enough of your blubbery...go prove "there were 3 impeachment inquiries that failed." And don't use Wikipedia...they're a "conspiracy theory" that "doesn't compute", remember?

Well ****, that was hard,

All The Times Donald Trump Impeachment Was Brought Up


2017 - Al Green, so you don't miss it "Texas Rep. Al Green was one of the first people to suggest tangible action toward impeachment, introducing an article in July to the House of Representatives. Despite initial support from Democratic leaders and an ongoing pursuit of moving impeachment proceedings forward, the majority of the House across both parties voted against impeachment."

IT FAILED AN ACTUAL VOTE.

2018 - "Within the following month, as the Mueller report was parsed through by Attorney General William Barr, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduced another formal impeachment resolution against Trump. Tlaib, the first Palestenian-American congresswoman in the U.S., swore on the day of her election to “impeach the mother****er,” and has since attempted to make good on that promise. "

From March 1 to July 17, 2019, a total of four different impeachment charges were made against Trump by different representatives, the latest coming again from Rep. Al Green, who was out-voted for the third time.


Again, like I said, you are woefully misinformed.

 

[sjmay]

The American people knows what trial looks like and thus far they're not seeing one. Bring on witnesses with direct firsthand knowledge of the events in question here. If the President did nothing wrong then he would have nothing to fear from their giving testimony and presenting documents. Would he. That's what the American people want to see happen here. If they don't see that they're going smell a cover up.

They also know not to call it rain when you are pissing on them, which is what the House Democrats are doing.

You think the average American is a ****ing moron and won't understand what hearsay is.

You think the average American is a ****ing moron and won't understand that the House Dems flat out lied to them.

You think the average American is a ****ing moron by parading around he's guilty until proven innocent....

Go ahead and keep going down that road.....

 

[Anthony60]

Let's see, in the House, the Democrats would not let the Republicans call any witnesses that they wanted, only with Democrat approval. So now, the Democrats want to call witnesses in the Senate, even though they already did that in the House, and they are not in charge in the Senate, but for some reason think that they can make the rules there too. The House Democrats now want to run the Senate's part of the impeachment. That's unconstitutional.

We need to defend the Constitution, again, from these Democrats. First, they run an unfair impeachment in the House, now they wish to further damage the Constitution by disobeying it in the Senate. And, get this, they claim to be defending the Constitution!