Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[churchmouse]

But it's not the Senate's job. The house is responsible for the investigation and gathering of evidence and presentation of said evidence. The Senate is responsible for hearing the evidence gathered and making a decision.

We don't ask members of the jury to take on the role of investigator and prosecutor in the middle of a trial.

Precisely.

The petulant children in the house have had their time. They are trying to push their authority into the senate. Their time has elapsed.

These stains have had over 3 years and untold amounts of our money to find something to unseat a duly elected president. They have found nothing of substance. Under these allegations no sitting president would ever pass muster.

This entire thing is to effect the outcome of an election and the election coming up.

Period.

Prove me wrong.

 

[KG1]

That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.

I don't know where you are getting that the Senate isn't doing thier job. The Senate has no obligation but to make a decision based on the evidence that was presented to them. If they feel that evidence wasn't sufficient based on what was presented to them to warrant a conviction and removal and the defense is able to present a compelling case based on the evidence already in the record then that is on the House.

They failed period. If you have an issue with that then take it up with the House.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But it's not the Senate's job. The house is responsible for the investigation and gathering of evidence and presentation of said evidence. The Senate is responsible for hearing the evidence gathered and making a decision.

We don't ask members of the jury to take on the role of investigator and prosecutor in the middle of a trial.

So you're saying that once a triil starts, new evidence can't be introduced that supports the original charge? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know where you are getting that the Senate isn't doing thier job. The Senate has no obligation but to make a decision based on the evidence that was presented to them. If they feel that evidence wasn't sufficient based on what was presented to them to warrant a conviction and removal and the defense is able to present a compelling case based on the evidence already in the record then that is on the House.

They failed period. If you have an issue with that then take it up with the House.

Ok question for you too. Can the Senate hear additional evidence related to the charges in question? I'm not asking if they should, I'm asking if they can.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So you're saying that once a triil starts, new evidence can't be introduced that supports the original charge? Is that what you're saying?

This is not a criminal trial. The process is not an apples to apples comparison. MCgrease is correct.

 

[jamil]

Ok question for you too. Can the Senate hear additional evidence related to the charges in question? I'm not asking if they should, I'm asking if they can.

Can the House finish investigating before they vote yes on impeachment articles? I not asking if they should. I’m asking if they can.

 

[ghitch75]

?????????

[h=1]Fox News Poll: Record economy ratings, as half say Senate should remove Trump[/h]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...atings-as-half-say-senate-should-remove-trump

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is not a criminal trial. The process is not an apples to apples comparison. MCgrease is correct.

That does not answer my question.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can the House finish investigating before they vote yes on impeachment articles? I not asking if they should. I’m asking if they can.

A question does not answer a question. If you can’t, or won’t answer the question, just pretend you didn’t see it.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Ok question for you too. Can the Senate hear additional evidence related to the charges in question? I'm not asking if they should, I'm asking if they can.

So you’re saying the house voted to impeach without having enough evidence to convict, and now the senate should allow more evidence to support the houses decision?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That does not answer my question.

In a criminal trial, yes new evidence can be introduced. In an impeachment trial, it can be introduced IF the Senate decides to allow it. They make the rules and as such are under no obligation to allow the introduction of new evidence which was not provided as a result of the House investigation. If the House turned over the articles of impeachment to the Senate, they don't get to change the rules and say, "Oh wait, we meant to include this additional evidence (or these additional witnesses)." Too bad, so sad. Sorry 'boutcha luck.

 

[Ingomike]

So you're saying that once a triil starts, new evidence can't be introduced that supports the original charge? Is that what you're saying?

Not my question but I'll give you the answer anyway.

No, new evidence can be introduced. However that does not change that the house is historically the venue of investigation and the senate the venue of a trial. Not only are the house impeachment managers failing to convince the senate they should remove Trump, they also failed to convince them to search for new evidence, including new witnesses. No cover up needed, just a failure to present a compelling case...

 

[Ingomike]

Not my question but I'll give you the answer anyway.

No, new evidence can be introduced. However that does not change that the house is historically the venue of investigation and the senate the venue of a trial. Not only are the house impeachment managers failing to convince the senate they should remove Trump, they also failed to convince them to search for new evidence, including new witnesses. No cover up needed, just a failure to present a compelling case...

If there was a scintilla of evidence that Trump had done an impeachable offense the rino republicans would be all over it and the savior Mitt Romney would be sacrificing all to run for president for the good of us...

 

[Kutnupe14]

If there was a scintilla of evidence that Trump had done an impeachable offense the rino republicans would be all over it and the savior Mitt Romney would be sacrificing all to run for president for the good of us...

False. I’m fairly convinced that if there were a secret ballot, the president would be removed. However, since Senators are beholden to their constituents, no matter how dumb they may be, they will vote in a way that best ensures they keep their seats.

 

[Brad69]

It’s great day to be a American!

The President just returned from Europe were he told the rest of the world to get with the program and jump on the prosperity train. The border wall is progressing nicely without Congress. The military has new equipment and a nice pay raise along with the support of the President. The 2AD is being protected at the national level for the most part. The economy is growing with the Dow setting records and if your not employed it’s because you don’t wanna work. Poor Americans have hope that a good paying job is possible and poverty may not be a way of life. America is exporting oil yes you read that right exporting oil I was told by 1999 we would be out of oil back in the 70’s. We just had a dust up with the Iranians and gas prices stayed the same WTF!

With all this going on the Democrats just can’t get over President DJT it’s not supposed to be this way in the Democratic mind.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

False. I’m fairly convinced that if there were a secret ballot, the president would be removed. However, since Senators are beholden to their constituents, no matter how dumb they may be, they will vote in a way that best ensures they keep their seats.

Wow... are you really advocating that the Senators should go against the will of their constituents (for their own good of course)? How very statist/elitist of you.

 

[KG1]

False. I’m fairly convinced that if there were a secret ballot, the president would be removed. However, since Senators are beholden to their constituents, no matter how dumb they may be, they will vote in a way that best ensures they keep their seats.

Your opinion. Others are fairly convinced that there would'nt be a 67 vote majority to convict and remove. Those opinions are off setting.

Next.

 

[Mgderf]

Wow... are you really advocating that the Senators should go against the will of their constituents (for their own good of course)? How very statist/elitist of you.

I'm surprised that you're surprised about Kuts position.
You've been here long enough to know that he's just trolling, again...

BTW- Elected representatives should ALWAYS be beholden to their constituents.
When they cease to be, removal is in order.

 

[Ingomike]

False. I’m fairly convinced that if there were a secret ballot, the president would be removed. However, since Senators are beholden to their constituents, no matter how dumb they may be, they will vote in a way that best ensures they keep their seats.

It is most definitely not false and your fu****g opinion does not make it false.

That said, I agree with you, if a secret ballot vote was held he would be removed from office and they also would likely make him ineligible to be President again. Just for completely different reasons.

The corruption of DC is at epidemic proportions and infects both parties. I guarantee there would be enough corrupt, or power hungry, or never Trumper republicans that would join democrats to remove him. Paul Ryan would still be republican leader if he had his power and Trump had not come along, if they didn't have to face the people with a public vote they would definitely take the easy road of corruption...