The Impeachment Thread

#35,051
#35,051
37L1 said:
Maybe those witnesses and evidence should have been handled by the House whose responsibility it was to conduct the investigation prior to sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate?

I know, how silly of me to expect that they do their job and not leave it to somebody else to do.

But look on the bright side, if they had, they wouldn't have such a good reason to whine, so there's that going for you.
Click to expand...


They tried but the WH prevented it. Not a single document. Ordered people not to show up to testify.

Interesting you neglect to mention that.
 
#35,056
#35,056
lawgator1 said:
They tried but the WH prevented it. Not a single document. Ordered people not to show up to testify.

Interesting you neglect to mention that.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. What's the redress for that LG? Interesting that you haven't mentioned that.

And don't give me the excuse that it was an urgent matter that had no time for that. Nancy killed that argument with her delay in sending the articles to the Senate. That month could have been used to do more and complete investigation. In fact, with that extra time the House wouldn't have needed to deny the opposition the ability to call witnessess, etc. and provide their own case for not going forward through exculpatory evidence. You don't mention that either, did you?

Democrats change the rules, Republicans whine. In the Senate, you get the same treatment and the Democrats whine. DDSS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeburst and tennvols77
#35,061
#35,061
lawgator1 said:
They were deposed.

I'd be fine with that. Video depositions of Bolton, Mulvaney, Parnas.
Click to expand...

Their depositions came from the Kenn Starr investigation. I'm sure transcripts of the House questioning witnesses during the House investigation will be provided so same-same. Next?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,065
#35,065
37L1 said:
Maybe those witnesses and evidence should have been handled by the House whose responsibility it was to conduct the investigation prior to sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate?

I know, how silly of me to expect that they do their job and not leave it to somebody else to do.

But look on the bright side, if they had, they wouldn't have such a good reason to whine, so there's that going for you.
Click to expand...
Their job was to decide if their was enough evidence to impeach. They did their job.
The senate's job is to hold a trial on the articles of impeachment.
I'm sure you've heard (and evidently conveniently ignored) many times by now, that the house is more like a grand jury. It is not their job to hold a trial.

What is silly of you is to actually think the hose was suppose to do a complete investigation with no possibilities of bringing additional evidence to the constitutionally mandated senate trial.
 
#35,066
#35,066
luthervol said:
Their job was to decide if their was enough evidence to impeach. They did their job.
The senate's job is to hold a trial on the articles of impeachment.
I'm sure you've heard (and evidently conveniently ignored) many times by now, that the house is more like a grand jury. It is not their job to hold a trial.

What is silly of you is to actually think the hose was suppose to do a complete investigation with no possibilities of bringing additional evidence to the constitutionally mandated senate trial.
Click to expand...

The House was the investigators AND the grand jury. If what they found during their investigation isn't enough to convict they shouldn't have impeached.

By using your analogy that the house is basically a grand jury then the senate is just a jury, how many juries investigate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 0nelilreb and 1972 Grad
#35,067
#35,067
luthervol said:
Their job was to decide if their was enough evidence to impeach. They did their job.
The senate's job is to hold a trial on the articles of impeachment.
I'm sure you've heard (and evidently conveniently ignored) many times by now, that the house is more like a grand jury. It is not their job to hold a trial.

What is silly of you is to actually think the hose was suppose to do a complete investigation with no possibilities of bringing additional evidence to the constitutionally mandated senate trial.
Click to expand...
It's the House's job to conduct the investigation and present the evidence they gathered to support the articles of impeachment. The Senate is the jury that rules on what the House presents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 0nelilreb
#35,068
#35,068
I can read the future.

They will argue and ultimately not allow new witnesses. Proceedings over-- President brags about winning, Democrat candidates yell cover up.

Bolton comes out with book right before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 0nelilreb
#35,069
#35,069
37L1 said:
It's the House's job to conduct the investigation and present the evidence they gathered to support the articles of impeachment. The Senate is the jury that rules on what the House presents.
Click to expand...

Again Luther knows all this........he's playing dumb so you'll give him some attention.....that's all.
Luther is like a little 13 yo kid in that he wants attention from those that do know what's going on.
 
#35,070
#35,070
hog88 said:
No witnesses testified at Clintons trial.
Click to expand...
They deposed 3 witnesses and did not block the calling of any material witnesses.
In fact, the Senate has obtained testimony from witnesses in every impeachment trial held in the past 50 years.
 
#35,073
#35,073
luthervol said:
They deposed 3 witnesses and did not block the calling of any material witnesses.
In fact, the Senate has obtained testimony from witnesses in every impeachment trial held in the past 50 years.
Click to expand...

The depositions came from the Ken Starr investigation. The Senate did not depose any witnesses in the Clinton trial.

Yes the Senate has obtained testimony in previous impeachment trials, they will have testimony from witnesses in this trial also or has the house refused to hand that over?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,075
#35,075
hog88 said:
The House was the investigators AND the grand jury. If what they found during their investigation isn't enough to convict they shouldn't have impeached.

By using your analogy that the house is basically a grand jury then the senate is just a jury, how many juries investigate?
Click to expand...
The house presents the case to the Senate. Nowhere is it stated that they only present evidence presented during the house hearings.
That's like saying the DA can only present evidence at trial that he presented to the grand jury.
You know that's asinine, but it's exactly the thread on which Trump's future hangs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top