Pelosi Objects to CNN Anchor’s Claim That Trump Was Acquitted in Impeachment Trial

[eccieuser9500]

It wasn't a real trial. Just opening and closing arguments, and then a decision. If you want to call that a trial, so be it. It wasn't anything close to a trial the Judiciary would have held.

But then the House didn't exactly have a fair evidentiary hearing. No justice in either case. I thought it was outrageous when the House counsel questioned the Executive's counsel.

Maybe a better description would be the case was summarily dismissed. Rather than any real judgment found. What did they judge? Just the evidence without new, or direct, corroboration.

When you can make the rules to suit your needs, that's what happens. I posted long ago that nobody should be up in arms over what was going to happen.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

It wasn't a real trial. Just opening and closing arguments, and then a decision. If you want to call that a trial, so be it. It wasn't anything close to a trial the Judiciary would have held.

But then the House didn't exactly have a fair evidentiary hearing. No justice in either case. I thought it was outrageous when the House counsel questioned the Executive's counsel.

Maybe a better description would be the case was summarily dismissed. Rather than any real judgment found. What did they judge? Just the evidence without new, or direct, corroboration.

When you can make the rules to suit your needs, that's what happens. I posted long ago that nobody should be up in arms over what was going to happen.

really? not a trial? that's an interesting take on it. if yous don't mind i'll take the adjudication pronounced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. will you?

now about those witness ..



On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ess-testimony/


Schiff: Calling Hunter Biden as impeachment witness would be 'an illegitimate abuse of the trial'

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-of-the-trial


Hawley: If Senate Calls Witnesses, Schiff, Biden, And Whistleblower Should Testify



Democrats shoot down talk of Bolton, Hunter Biden witness swap

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...n-witness-swap


see the pattern here? the Democrats never wanted witnesses to be called .. only "their" opinion witnesses.



speaking of witness testimony .. why is it that Schiff refuses to release ICIG Atkinson's testimony? what did he say behind closed doors? the ranking committee Republicans KNOW .. that's why they weren't going to allow Schiff his Kangaroo Court "witnesses" .. unless they get theirs too. see how that works?



House Democrats conceal testimony of 18th witness from Trump team

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-adam-schiff/


Rep. John Ratcliffe: 'The reason it hasn't been released is it's not helpful to Adam Schiff'

Schiff is a former prosecutor. and yet he withheld testimony that would damage (RUIN ACTUALLY) his case. had he done that as a prosecutor it could have gotten him disbarred.



anything else you'd like to know about the "fairness" of the Senate trial, valued poster?

[Unique_Carpenter]

I have a new phrase:

Demlusional

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

It wasn't a real trial. Just opening and closing arguments, and then a decision. If you want to call that a trial, so be it. It wasn't anything close to a trial the Judiciary would have held.

But then the House didn't exactly have a fair evidentiary hearing. No justice in either case. I thought it was outrageous when the House counsel questioned the Executive's counsel.

Maybe a better description would be the case was summarily dismissed. Rather than any real judgment found. What did they judge? Just the evidence without new, or direct, corroboration.

When you can make the rules to suit your needs, that's what happens. I posted long ago that nobody should be up in arms over what was going to happen.

They didn't have a real case either. No real testimony with real witnesses and evidence. Just a bunch made up bullshit based on hearsay and opinions. Trump was acquitted and he'll be reelected. If that bothers you, then get the fuck out of this country you're a useless militant fuck anyway.

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

I have a new phrase:

Demlusional

Can I get the Canadian rights to that gem?

[The_Waco_Kid]

how ironic isn't it? that the Demtards led by Shitthead Schiff a former prosecutor botched their kangaroo court so bad that they had to BEG Mandarin Mitch to help them out, yeah?


well Mitch knows the game and .. wait for it .. TRUMPED them at their own game!


BRILLIANT!!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

They didn't have a real case either. No real testimony with real witnesses and evidence. Just a bunch made up bullshit based on hearsay and opinions. Trump was acquitted and he'll be reelected. If that bothers you, then get the fuck out of this country you're a useless militant fuck anyway.

Another word for the decision would be coverup. It doesn't bother me you fuckin' idiot. As I posted long ago, and you quoted me on this thread, those who had a broader understanding of what would happen weren't going to be botheres. Or shouldn't be.

If you still don't get it, get your nose out of the Orange One's ass you sheepish shithead.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Another word for the decision would be coverup. It doesn't bother me you fuckin' idiot. As I posted long ago, and you quoted me on this thread, those who had a broader understanding of what would happen weren't going to be botheres. Or shouldn't be.

If you still don't get it, get your nose out of the Orange One's ass you sheepish shithead.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

It wasn't a real trial. Just opening and closing arguments, and then a decision. If you want to call that a trial, so be it. It wasn't anything close to a trial the Judiciary would have held.

But then the House didn't exactly have a fair evidentiary hearing. No justice in either case. I thought it was outrageous when the House counsel questioned the Executive's counsel.

Maybe a better description would be the case was summarily dismissed. Rather than any real judgment found. What did they judge? Just the evidence without new, or direct, corroboration.

When you can make the rules to suit your needs, that's what happens. I posted long ago that nobody should be up in arms over what was going to happen.

your own words betray you and Schumer. you seem .. agitated valued poster ..









calm yourself .. all is well in America.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Another word for the decision would be coverup. It doesn't bother me you fuckin' idiot. As I posted long ago, and you quoted me on this thread, those who had a broader understanding of what would happen weren't going to be botheres. Or shouldn't be.

If you still don't get it, get your nose out of the Orange One's ass you sheepish shithead.

Must be a dam good one because nobody as of yet has been able to uncover it, lol. It really doesn't matter to me either. The only thing that matters to me is a Democrat doesn't enter the White House for many years to come.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

your own words betray you and Schumer. you seem .. agitated valued poster ..









calm yourself .. all is well in America.

Projection 101. I'm not bothered. You're just like the POTUS.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Must be a dam good one because nobody as of yet has been able to uncover it, lol. It really doesn't matter to me either. The only thing that matters to me is a Democrat doesn't enter the White House for many years to come.

You two are the dumbasses who go off when I just post my comment on this thread. And Wacko says I'm triggered?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I want to know exactly how stupid these guys can be.

There are already over 40K examples of stupidity. I don't want to read another one. Stop quoting him. Thanks.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

really? not a trial? that's an interesting take on it. if yous don't mind i'll take the adjudication pronounced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. will you?

now about those witness ..



....

Supreme Court Justice Roberts proclaimed it a proceeding consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution that Pelosi swears she's bound to uphold. Her claiming it "was not a trial" is just another treasonous act on her part.

Adam Schiff called witnesses in the SCIF room and on the House floor.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Supreme Court Justice Roberts proclaimed it a proceeding consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution that Pelosi swears she's bound to uphold. Her claiming it "was not a trial" is just another treasonous act on her part.

Adam Schiff called witnesses in the SCIF room and on the House floor.

It ‘s pretty obvious that the Democrat Leadership gets an “F” in Civics.

That, and they have now cheapened the impeachment process to the extent it means nothing, other than you can get a simple majority of partisan political hacks to vote for anything.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

.... It doesn't bother me you fuckin' idiot. As I posted long ago, and you quoted me on this thread, those who had a broader understanding of what would happen weren't going to be botheres. Or shouldn't be.

If you still don't get it, get your nose out of the Orange One's ass you sheepish shithead.

You sound bothered. Really bothered. Good.

[rexdutchman]

Hypocrisy and idiocy at its best Pelissssssssi thinks H won the election