Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(12-19-2019, 05:16 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The stock market did not respond to Pelosi and her goons.

How can that be?? The President was IMPEACHED!


Oh, that's right, no one cares.

(12-19-2019, 09:38 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 02:18 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]As the evidence is evident, I Concur w/the Impeachment of Trump. The sad thing of it is, is that the leader of Congress has already stated that "He's not going anywhere". Impeached but he may remain in office.

Time Will Tell.

NH3...

The leader of Congress didn't say that. The leader of Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

You both seriously need a civics lesson or two.

Pelosi holding on to the Articles and not sending them to the Senate immediately is further proof that this whole thing is a partisan political sham.  It's an obvious abuse of power.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.  On the one hand I am happy because it is bringing down the democrat party and only helps The President to get elected for a second term.  On the other hand it's a gross abuse of the impeachment process and sets an awful and dangerous precedence for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that this certainly helps ensure another 4 years for President Trump.  I hope Pelosi keeps holding back sending it to The Senate as long as possible.  The longer she holds back, the more it exposes that it was a very weak and unfair impeachment.  I have faith that the majority of voters have the common sense to see this for what it is.

(12-19-2019, 06:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 09:38 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The leader of Congress didn't say that. The leader of Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

You both seriously need a civics lesson or two.

Pelosi holding on to the Articles and not sending them to the Senate immediately is further proof that this whole thing is a partisan political sham.  It's an obvious abuse of power.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.  On the one hand I am happy because it is bringing down the democrat party and only helps The President to get elected for a second term.  On the other hand it's a gross abuse of the impeachment process and sets an awful and dangerous precedence for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that this certainly helps ensure another 4 years for President Trump.  I hope Pelosi keeps holding back sending it to The Senate as long as possible.  The longer she holds back, the more it exposes that it was a very weak and unfair impeachment.  I have faith that the majority of voters have the common sense to see this for what it is.

Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 06:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]You both seriously need a civics lesson or two.

Pelosi holding on to the Articles and not sending them to the Senate immediately is further proof that this whole thing is a partisan political sham.  It's an obvious abuse of power.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.  On the one hand I am happy because it is bringing down the democrat party and only helps The President to get elected for a second term.  On the other hand it's a gross abuse of the impeachment process and sets an awful and dangerous precedence for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that this certainly helps ensure another 4 years for President Trump.  I hope Pelosi keeps holding back sending it to The Senate as long as possible.  The longer she holds back, the more it exposes that it was a very weak and unfair impeachment.  I have faith that the majority of voters have the common sense to see this for what it is.

Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Maybe they already have enough information to know the impeachment is a fraud. I know I do.

(12-20-2019, 04:06 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Maybe they already have enough information to know the impeachment is a fraud. I know I do.

No no no, you must give lip service to the shampeachment or it will be the end of The Republic as we know it!

(12-20-2019, 04:06 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Maybe they already have enough information to know the impeachment is a fraud. I know I do.

"Know"

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 06:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]You both seriously need a civics lesson or two.

Pelosi holding on to the Articles and not sending them to the Senate immediately is further proof that this whole thing is a partisan political sham.  It's an obvious abuse of power.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.  On the one hand I am happy because it is bringing down the democrat party and only helps The President to get elected for a second term.  On the other hand it's a gross abuse of the impeachment process and sets an awful and dangerous precedence for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that this certainly helps ensure another 4 years for President Trump.  I hope Pelosi keeps holding back sending it to The Senate as long as possible.  The longer she holds back, the more it exposes that it was a very weak and unfair impeachment.  I have faith that the majority of voters have the common sense to see this for what it is.

Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Lol

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 06:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]You both seriously need a civics lesson or two.

Pelosi holding on to the Articles and not sending them to the Senate immediately is further proof that this whole thing is a partisan political sham.  It's an obvious abuse of power.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.  On the one hand I am happy because it is bringing down the democrat party and only helps The President to get elected for a second term.  On the other hand it's a gross abuse of the impeachment process and sets an awful and dangerous precedence for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that this certainly helps ensure another 4 years for President Trump.  I hope Pelosi keeps holding back sending it to The Senate as long as possible.  The longer she holds back, the more it exposes that it was a very weak and unfair impeachment.  I have faith that the majority of voters have the common sense to see this for what it is.

Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Look Sonnie, your team has achieved all they can with this play. You should bank your gains and call it a day. Even Pelosi knows that letting this get onto the Senate floor will result in the entire impeachment being even more discredited than Schiff and Nadler already made it. At this point you have no chance of winning and barely a chance that it doesn't run the entire Democratic party out of any semblance of power in Washington next year. Quit while the moronic half of the public thinks you're ahead else they might come to their senses if you hold on a minute too long.

(12-20-2019, 07:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2019, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi holding on to the articles is nothing good.  She has no leverage.  The Senate is supposed to be independent of both the House and the President, so that they can be brought in to arbitrate this dispute between them that we call impeachment.  The Senate is not supposed to be signalling that they will acquit before investigating the charges.  They are supposed to consider what both teams of lawyers want.

I agree Pelosi is not playing her role exactly right, and I'm not sure how this helps her cause, but the Senate decided not to play theirs first.

Two weeks ago Marco Rubio was giving interviews saying that he would respect the process and not decide his vote until both sides had their say, and now Mitch and Lindsey have scared Marco into submission.  Meanwhile Rick Scott has not said anything at all.  One of these guys needs to stand up to McConnell and give a crap about how history will remember all of this.

Look Sonnie, your team has achieved all they can with this play. You should bank your gains and call it a day. Even Pelosi knows that letting this get onto the Senate floor will result in the entire impeachment being even more discredited than Schiff and Nadler already made it. At this point you have no chance of winning and barely a chance that it doesn't run the entire Democratic party out of any semblance of power in Washington next year. Quit while the moronic half of the public thinks you're ahead else they might come to their senses if you hold on a minute too long.

Call me Sonnie if you want.  I agree that McConnell and other Senators hope to treat Schiff and Nadler like a joke, like they are unworthy of their time.  I just don't think that the public will buy it, but you apparently do.  
I think when the public sees someone with less power getting bullied and treated like trash, some of them say "well that guy must be trash" but most others say, "that bully is a terrible person. Who does he think he is?"

 I also think that Roberts is a wildcard.  While Roberts can't change the schedule or the roster of witnesses, once he gets there, each Senator must direct their speeches to him and he is free to reply to them. He is free to remind these Republicans that they are supposed to be impartial, repeatedly if needed. The Senators may not listen to the Democrats or to Roberts but the voters will try to listen to everyone.

(12-20-2019, 11:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2019, 07:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Look Sonnie, your team has achieved all they can with this play. You should bank your gains and call it a day. Even Pelosi knows that letting this get onto the Senate floor will result in the entire impeachment being even more discredited than Schiff and Nadler already made it. At this point you have no chance of winning and barely a chance that it doesn't run the entire Democratic party out of any semblance of power in Washington next year. Quit while the moronic half of the public thinks you're ahead else they might come to their senses if you hold on a minute too long.

Call me Sonnie if you want.  I agree that McConnell and other Senators hope to treat Schiff and Nadler like a joke, like they are unworthy of their time.  I just don't think that the public will buy it, but you apparently do.  
I think when the public sees someone with less power getting bullied and treated like trash, some of them say "well that guy must be trash" but most others say, "that bully is a terrible person. Who does he think he is?"

 I also think that Roberts is a wildcard.  While Roberts can't change the schedule or the roster of witnesses, once he gets there, each Senator must direct their speeches to him and he is free to reply to them. He is free to remind these Republicans that they are supposed to be impartial, repeatedly if needed.  The Senators may not listen to the Democrats or to Roberts but the voters will try to listen to everyone.

Under federal rules of evidence there isn't any evidence or testimony to present

(12-21-2019, 12:32 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2019, 11:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Call me Sonnie if you want.  I agree that McConnell and other Senators hope to treat Schiff and Nadler like a joke, like they are unworthy of their time.  I just don't think that the public will buy it, but you apparently do.  
I think when the public sees someone with less power getting bullied and treated like trash, some of them say "well that guy must be trash" but most others say, "that bully is a terrible person. Who does he think he is?"

 I also think that Roberts is a wildcard.  While Roberts can't change the schedule or the roster of witnesses, once he gets there, each Senator must direct their speeches to him and he is free to reply to them. He is free to remind these Republicans that they are supposed to be impartial, repeatedly if needed.  The Senators may not listen to the Democrats or to Roberts but the voters will try to listen to everyone.

Under federal rules of evidence there isn't any evidence or testimony to present

I'm sure you're an expert on the federal rules of evidence.

(12-21-2019, 09:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 12:32 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Under federal rules of evidence there isn't any evidence or testimony to present

I'm sure you're an expert on the federal rules of evidence.

Hearsay=get a life.  

Not that difficult

(12-21-2019, 09:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 12:32 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Under federal rules of evidence there isn't any evidence or testimony to present

I'm sure you're an expert on the federal rules of evidence.

Insufficient argument.

(12-21-2019, 10:24 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 09:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you're an expert on the federal rules of evidence.

Insufficient argument.

You want me to try for a sufficient argument? You never second anything I say...

---

(12-21-2019, 10:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 09:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you're an expert on the federal rules of evidence.

Hearsay=get a life.  

Not that difficult

What laypeople call hearsay is admissible in many circumstances under the federal rules of evidence. Especially when trying to prove a conspiracy.
However, the federal rules of evidence speak to criminal procedure, and impeachment is not a criminal procedure, but a political one. The process is not to decide guilt and punishment. It decides removal from public office and disqualification from future public office.

Artist's rendition of mikesez:

(12-21-2019, 11:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 10:24 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Insufficient argument.

You want me to try for a sufficient argument? You never second anything I say...

---

(12-21-2019, 10:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Hearsay=get a life.  

Not that difficult

What laypeople call hearsay is admissible in many circumstances under the federal rules of evidence. Especially when trying to prove a conspiracy.
However, the federal rules of evidence speak to criminal procedure, and impeachment is not a criminal procedure, but a political one. The process is not to decide guilt and punishment. It decides removal from public office and disqualification from future public office.

Just think about how ignorant this is.  Calling something "political" doesnt magically make third hand hearsay or speculation any more credible to determining TRUTH.  

This whole thing is about establishing that the president a.) Acted with corrupt intent b.) Did so in a manner that could seriously compromise the national interest.  Any sane person would take the admission by ALL WITNESSES that they were not aware of potential charges or wrongdoing by joe biden as disqualifying of whatever concerns they may have had about corrupt intent.  Case closed go home.

Moreover, impeachment was designed to be the last recourse for a rogue president acting outside the bounds of checks and balances. That's not the case here.  

They accuse him of withholding funds improperly.  The budget control act sets out that the executive does have limited discretion on the release of funds and sets out a timeframe to release said funds before his administration would have to show cause.  

He's accused of having an improper conversation with a foreign leader.  The transcript was preserved, declassified and released.  

He is accused of obstructing Congress.  SCOTUS has held that the close advisors to the chief executive have virtually infinite immunity from compulsion to testify before the legislature under executive privilege and separation of powers.  

The idea that we would jump to impeachment for clearly lawful acts is a childish abuse of power to distract from the left's weakening hand in 2020.  Just shrowding it in the term political is akin to saying "we plan to remove you from office and disenfranchise your voters because you killed your wife.  We won't allow her to testify because this is just a political not criminal matter."  

Also, it has been held that our constitutional rights do and should extend to congressional proceedings.  The idea that "congress shall make no law" means unless they want to publicly smear you and destroy their political futures is childish on its face.

(12-21-2019, 12:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 11:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You want me to try for a sufficient argument? You never second anything I say...

---

What laypeople call hearsay is admissible in many circumstances under the federal rules of evidence. Especially when trying to prove a conspiracy.
However, the federal rules of evidence speak to criminal procedure, and impeachment is not a criminal procedure, but a political one. The process is not to decide guilt and punishment. It decides removal from public office and disqualification from future public office.

Just think about how ignorant this is.  Calling something "political" doesnt magically make third hand hearsay or speculation any more credible to determining TRUTH.  

This whole thing is about establishing that the president a.) Acted with corrupt intent b.) Did so in a manner that could seriously compromise the national interest.  Any sane person would take the admission by ALL WITNESSES that they were not aware of potential charges or wrongdoing by joe biden as disqualifying of whatever concerns they may have had about corrupt intent.  Case closed go home.

Moreover, impeachment was designed to be the last recourse for a rogue president acting outside the bounds of checks and balances. That's not the case here.  

They accuse him of withholding funds improperly.  The budget control act sets out that the executive does have limited discretion on the release of funds and sets out a timeframe to release said funds before his administration would have to show cause.  

He's accused of having an improper conversation with a foreign leader.  The transcript was preserved, declassified and released.  

He is accused of obstructing Congress.  SCOTUS has held that the close advisors to the chief executive have virtually infinite immunity from compulsion to testify before the legislature under executive privilege and separation of powers.  

The idea that we would jump to impeachment for clearly lawful acts is a childish abuse of power to distract from the left's weakening hand in 2020.  Just shrowding it in the term political is akin to saying "we plan to remove you from office and disenfranchise your voters because you killed your wife.  We won't allow her to testify because this is just a political not criminal matter."  

Also, it has been held that our constitutional rights do and should extend to congressional proceedings.  The idea that "congress shall make no law" means unless they want to publicly smear you and destroy their political futures is childish on its face.

You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

This is not a criminal trial, and there is no supply of impartial jurors from which to draw. It's laughable for Pelosi to demand fairness when the House Dems have been single-minded impeachment zombies since 2016.

(12-21-2019, 12:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2019, 12:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Just think about how ignorant this is.  Calling something "political" doesnt magically make third hand hearsay or speculation any more credible to determining TRUTH.  

This whole thing is about establishing that the president a.) Acted with corrupt intent b.) Did so in a manner that could seriously compromise the national interest.  Any sane person would take the admission by ALL WITNESSES that they were not aware of potential charges or wrongdoing by joe biden as disqualifying of whatever concerns they may have had about corrupt intent.  Case closed go home.

Moreover, impeachment was designed to be the last recourse for a rogue president acting outside the bounds of checks and balances. That's not the case here.  

They accuse him of withholding funds improperly.  The budget control act sets out that the executive does have limited discretion on the release of funds and sets out a timeframe to release said funds before his administration would have to show cause.  

He's accused of having an improper conversation with a foreign leader.  The transcript was preserved, declassified and released.  

He is accused of obstructing Congress.  SCOTUS has held that the close advisors to the chief executive have virtually infinite immunity from compulsion to testify before the legislature under executive privilege and separation of powers.  

The idea that we would jump to impeachment for clearly lawful acts is a childish abuse of power to distract from the left's weakening hand in 2020.  Just shrowding it in the term political is akin to saying "we plan to remove you from office and disenfranchise your voters because you killed your wife.  We won't allow her to testify because this is just a political not criminal matter."  

Also, it has been held that our constitutional rights do and should extend to congressional proceedings.  The idea that "congress shall make no law" means unless they want to publicly smear you and destroy their political futures is childish on its face.

You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

The basis of all American Law is that the prosecution has to prove the case and the Accused does not have to participate. No matter how much you say that they should testify the simple and most basic fundamental of our law says that they don't have to and that you have to prove your case even if they do not. Since they have not, and you have not proven your case, then the vote to impeach is seen, rightly so, as a mere political tactic by the Democratic Party. You can kvetch all you want, torture the words and laws all you want, pout and cry all you want, even go as far as to pretend that you are correct all you want, but the facts are not on your side and the Senate, and by extension the American People, knows it and will hold you accountable next November.

---

(12-21-2019, 02:12 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]This is not a criminal trial, and there is no supply of impartial jurors from which to draw.  It's laughable for Pelosi to demand fairness when the House Dems have been single-minded impeachment zombies since 2016.

Mikesez says that the House sham was totes fair and OrangeManBad is guilty of something or other.