Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

[Jackie S]

Keep in mind, just as we have all been reminded, impeachment is a political process, not a legal or judicial one.

Senate a Majority Leader McConnell can run this any way he pleases. The Constitution does not cover procedures.

I think he should call the Senate to order, and immediately call for a vote. When the vote is for acquittal, simply gavel the entire charade ended.

The whole affair shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Hannity! REALLY! You're better served not making it known you watch that shit.

As much as I hate to be a cheerleader for Hannity because he is quite annoying AND REPETITIVE TO A FAULT.



Who has been more right on literally everything more than Hannity? He was the lone voice saying Trump would win. Correct


He was the loudest voice saying the Mueller report would bomb because there never was any evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia. Just ask Mueller.


He was the only person from the jump saying that there was FISA abuse. Correct.


The simple truth is, Hannity has been right on the major issues and put together a team that laid all this out for everybody to see that wanted to see.


Comey wasn't vindicated by the IG report but Sean Hannity sure as hell was.


I came back to this because I was watching tonight when one of those AH HA! moments happened on Hannity. He was interviewing Ken Starr and Dersowitz, two more people that have had it right from the get go and Dersowitz laid down a stunning argument that tosses aside the second article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress for refusing subpoenas from Congress. Trump saying that he would let the SC decide but the Dems were in to much of a hurry to wait. I was hopping I could put up the interview so I wouldn't have to try and explain it but the interview isn't up on his site yet maybe tomorrow night but here goes.


The Congress subpoenaed Trumps financial and bank records and Trump refused and decided to take it to court. Congress argued, that he must comply and the courts had nothing to say on this matter. If Trump didn't hand them over, he could be impeached for Obstruction of Congress. Well guess what, the SC has decided to hear Trumps case making any obstruction of Congress charge moot. By the SC stepping in, validates Trump's argument that he can refuse subpoenas from Congress and ask the courts to decide the matter as anybody with half a brain knew was the case all along. It's what the SC is there for to intervene in disputes between the Legislative and Executive branch.


The SC just made the second article of impeachment, moot and you heard it on Sean Hannity and no where else. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Bruce.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

First, why would McGahn show up unless the SC says he must and what could he possible say other than "yeah, Trump held of funds until Zelensky promised to investigate the Bidens" which the Republicans and apprently a mority of Independents don't give a shit if that is 100% accurate.


I believe that is exactly what Trump wanted whether or not he said "exactly" that in the phone call or in conversations with Sondland and company. I don't care. I do not think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense of abuse of power because I believe the President and the President alone can do exactly what he is accused of doing without violating the law or his oath of office.


Mark Levin went on one of his rants on Hannity the other night and rightly suggested that literally every President, including Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ( and many more ) abused their power whether it was for "personal gain" or not which is subjective at best.



So no quid pro quo because Biden did exactly that and it would make Democrats look like the hypocrites they are. No bribery because, well, there was no bribery and again JOE BIDEN!


So now we will have the first impeachment in history that will not include a statutory criminal act that existed with Nixon and Clinton.


Democrats stepped in a big pile of shit and they know it but can't back down now. I the words of Don Jr. "I love it".


I personally would love to see both Bidens called and the WB and Schiff but I can see the value in letting the Democrats call anybody they want to spout the same bullshit they have been spouting and then McConnell say, "let's vote" and get it done with nothing more from Republicans like a defense lawyer resting their case without calling anybody because the plaintiff did not make their case and everybody knows it.

Well the Democrats will set a precedent to Impeachment It will go like this. "No need for a crime or evidence to support any crime or witnesses". All that is needed is unanimous House Vote "If you Hate The President that's enough to Impeach". All other opinions be dammed.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

As much as I hate to be a cheerleader for Hannity because he is quite annoying AND REPETITIVE TO A FAULT.



Who has been more right on literally everything more than Hannity? He was the lone voice saying Trump would win. Correct


He was the loudest voice saying the Mueller report would bomb because there never was any evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia. Just ask Mueller.


He was the only person from the jump saying that there was FISA abuse. Correct.


The simple truth is, Hannity has been right on the major issues and put together a team that laid all this out for everybody to see that wanted to see.


Comey wasn't vindicated by the IG report but Sean Hannity sure as hell was.


I came back to this because I was watching tonight when one of those AH HA! moments happened on Hannity. He was interviewing Ken Starr and Dersowitz, two more people that have had it right from the get go and Dersowitz laid down a stunning argument that tosses aside the second article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress for refusing subpoenas from Congress. Trump saying that he would let the SC decide but the Dems were in to much of a hurry to wait. I was hopping I could put up the interview so I wouldn't have to try and explain it but the interview isn't up on his site yet maybe tomorrow night but here goes.


The Congress subpoenaed Trumps financial and bank records and Trump refused and decided to take it to court. Congress argued, that he must comply and the courts had nothing to say on this matter. If Trump didn't hand them over, he could be impeached for Obstruction of Congress. Well guess what, the SC has decided to hear Trumps case making any obstruction of Congress charge moot. By the SC stepping in, validates Trump's argument that he can refuse subpoenas from Congress and ask the courts to decide the matter as anybody with half a brain knew was the case all along. It's what the SC is there for to intervene in disputes between the Legislative and Executive branch.


The SC just made the second article of impeachment, moot and you heard it on Sean Hannity and no where else. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Bruce.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well the Democrats will set a precedent to Impeachment It will go like this. "No need for a crime or evidence to support any crime or witnesses". All that is needed is unanimous House Vote "If you Hate The President that's enough to Impeach". All other opinions be dammed.

The House has the sole power to impeach. It does not need to wait for an equal power to "weigh in".

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The House has the sole power to impeach. It does not need to wait for an equal power to "weigh in".

The House has the power to Impeach but they don't have the power to convict or to remove a president from office that task weighs in on the Senate by a two thirds majority vote. In Trump's case he may get impeached but there is a very slim to zero chance the Senate will convict him and remove him from office. The reason being the House can't find a crime. They can only present a presumption of a crime and that's not good enough for the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The House has the power to Impeach but they don't have the power to convict or to remove a president from office that task weighs in on the Senate by a two thirds majority vote. In Trump's case he may get impeached but there is a very slim to zero chance the Senate will convict him and remove him from office. The reason being the House can't find a crime. They can only present a presumption of a crime and that's not good enough for the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office.

For me, and many others, violating your oath of office is criminal. Bribery was too finite. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress are good enough. Personal gain and dismissing law. Pretty basic shit.

I really hold out the Senate will hold up the Constitution.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

For me, and many others, violating your oath of office is criminal. Bribery was too finite. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress are good enough. Personal gain and dismissing law. Pretty basic shit.

except Trump didn't abuse his oath and didn't obstruct Congress. you just want to believe he did. this is what being a racist socialist hatemonger gets you. butt you know that, right?


consider that before you cry racist when anyone makes a post that supports Trump and doesn't buy into the Democrat's hate filled agenda. like Obama. the most racist president ever.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

except Trump didn't abuse his oath

The Constitution states the House has the power to check the President. Two for one violation.

and didn't obstruct Congress.

He swore to uphold that. He's ordered his office not to comply. Basic violation.

you just want to believe he did.

The world can see his crime.

this is what being a racist socialist hatemonger gets you. butt you know that, right?


consider that before you cry racist when anyone makes a post that supports Trump and doesn't buy into the Democrat's hate filled agenda. like Obama. the most racist president ever.

I beleive the Constitution is law. He's taking "liberties" with it. I will grant him his right, with all his might, to try and get away with it. I'd try to talk my way out of a jaywalking citation. This is to the extreme. "What is the definition of is"? Try that one when you get pulled over.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I beleive the Constitution is law. He's taking "liberties" with it. I will grant him his right, with all his might, to try and get away with it. I'd try to talk my way out of a jaywalking citation. This is to the extreme. "What is the definition of is"? Try that one when you get pulled over.

what liberties? the kind Obama took? or some other kind?

Obama's violations of the Constitution are well documented. Trump's are a fiction by the racist party of hate, the Democrats. by supporting a racist party, you are accepting and condoning racism.

does that in fact make you a racist? of course it does. poor little De'Von Bailey. gunned down by a racist white cop in your view. if the cop was black .. ?? the suspect white??

remember what Obama said about poor little Trayvon "skittles" Martin? if he had a son he'd be like Trayvon. a gun toting gang banging "head". was it racist for Obama to say that? of course. it was intended to incite racial discord. Trump on the other hand as helped minorities. yet you claim Trump is the racist.

remember .. the racist is the one who cry's racism.


thank you valued poster!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what liberties? the kind Obama took? or some other kind?

Obama's violations of the Constitution are well documented. Trump's are a fiction by the racist party of hate, the Democrats. by supporting a racist party, you are accepting and condoning racism.

does that in fact make you a racist? of course it does. poor little De'Von Bailey. gunned down by a racist white cop in your view. if the cop was black .. ?? the suspect white??

remember what Obama said about poor little Trayvon "skittles" Martin? if he had a son he'd be like Trayvon. a gun toting gang banging "head". was it racist for Obama to say that? of course. it was intended to incite racial discord. Trump on the other hand as helped minorities. yet you claim Trump is the racist.

remember .. the racist is the one who cry's racism.


thank you valued poster!

You're projecting and deflecting from the substance of the argument. You even threw in a whataboutism. When I make it easy for you, you change the subject. You lose.

Remember. Obama taught Constitutional law. Nobody had to tell him what he could execute. This guy doesn't know basic English, let alone know when he violates his oath. "The oranges of the investigation"?









Your welcome valued poster.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

For me, and many others, violating your oath of office is criminal. Bribery was too finite. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress are good enough. Personal gain and dismissing law. Pretty basic shit.

I really hold out the Senate will hold up the Constitution.

basically, congress is accusing him of corruption?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're projecting and deflecting from the substance of the argument. You even threw in a whataboutism. When I make it easy for you, you change the subject. You lose.

Remember. Obama taught Constitutional law. Nobody had to tell him what he could execute. This guy doesn't know basic English, let alone know when he violates his oath. "The oranges of the investigation"?

You make it to easy. For a guy who taught constitutional law, he sure got slapped down a lot.


https://www.cato.org/publications/co...dern-president


Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ing-presidency


Top 10 Ways Obama Violated the Constitution during His Presidency

https://breakingnewshouse.com/2019/0...-constitution/


In 6-2 Decision, US Supreme Court Declares Obama Violated the Constitution






https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...ongress-077988


The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.
The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

On June 20, 2012, President Barack

Obama

asserted

executive privilege

in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're projecting and deflecting from the substance of the argument. You even threw in a whataboutism. When I make it easy for you, you change the subject. You lose.

Remember. Obama taught Constitutional law. Nobody had to tell him what he could execute. This guy doesn't know basic English, let alone know when he violates his oath. "The oranges of the investigation"?




Your welcome valued poster.

not at all. you and others constantly claim Trump is a racist yet it's Obama who acted in a deliberately racist manner. the proof is his own words. did he not say that about "skittles" Martin? want me to post the video?

how is Trump taking liberties? in what way? are "liberties" impeachable? by pointing out Obama's actual violations of the Constitution isn't deflecting, it's proving who the real violator is.

Obama knew full well his actions were against the Constitution, he did it intentionally.

now who's the Imperial Ruler?



.

[LexusLover]

Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

No. Witnesses can create an "issue" where there is NONE!

To follow the rubric of a criminal proceeding (and let the LIBERAL LOONS start claiming it's not a "criminal proceeding" after they've been shouting CRIME FOR YEARS NOW!!!!) ......

...the procedural process is to allow the government to "shoot its wad" and then seek an instructed verdict without offering any refuting testimony based on the FACT that no offense has been charged to support a conviction and there is NO CRIME AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Offering any controverting evidence only gives the LAME STREAM MEDIA AND THEIR STUPID TV PERSONALITIES an opportunity to LIE some more to the U.S. voters about what witnesses have said and to what they testify under oath. The IDIOTS ON HERE who support impeachment actually believe and post on here what THE LAME STREAM MEDIA reports was said under oath and if they don't have live feeds of it .... they just report what the LOONY fools "believe" they meant to say!!!

I hope for their sanity when the alleged "witnesses" and "operatives" are prosecuted the Government gives them all the due process to which they are entitled including THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE to which all people are entitled in the U.S., including the Illegal Aliens they are encouraging to come to this country to lie and vote for them to keep them in office (after all .... 99% of the Illegal Aliens are accustomed to living in a country with corrupt law makers and judges).

[rexdutchman]

winning is his only crime ,,,,,