The trial of Donald J. Trump

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the house never issued a formal impeachment inquiry for the the committee?

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That is the defenses argument as to why Trump would not turn over documents and honor subpoena's. This was not a case of EP as some Democrats are arguing, that assertion has not been made yet and won't unless witnesses in the Executive branch ( Bolton, Mulvaney ) are agreed to.

If the defense is making this claim, then they are saying that the House failed to follow proper procedure in order to legally obtain the requested documents by not setting the up the vote for authorization in the house chamber to allow the committee to start the impeachment inquiry in motion.

I think the Judicial committee was the one to headline that act, but the intel committee jumped on it.


this raises the question on whether the Senate should have accepted the articles in the first place.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

If the defense is making this claim, then they are saying that the House failed to follow proper procedure in order to legally obtain the requested documents by not setting the up the vote for authorization in the house chamber to allow the committee to start the impeachment inquiry in motion.

I think the Judicial committee was the one to headline that act, but the intel committee jumped on it.


this raises the question on whether the Senate should have accepted the articles in the first place.

#1: If I were following the illegal action line of argument, since the Loons in the House want to "cherry pick" impeachment history, I would follow two lines of inquiry .... and separate them along common sense interpretations: NonPresidential impeachments and Presidential impeachments. Argument: Removal of a duly elected sitting President overturns the vote of the citizns who elected him and should carry with it a HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF to actually pass articles of impeachment and a HIGHER BURDEN of proof to support those articles in the Senate.

#2: The testimony and documents to support the vote on the Articles should be open to the public before the Judiciary Committee, who ostensibly are appointed to that committee because of their extensive backgrounds in "judicial matters" and their reputation in the legal community for high standards.

#3: A full and complete video/audio recording of all matters regarding testimony and/or arguments for or against the articles along with all documents admitted and those not admitted, but offered, into evidence to support the passing of the articles, should be packaged and sent WITH THE ARTICLES for the Senate to Review .. in public so the voters who participated in the election of the accused may see what was there and what was not.

There is day and night difference between a Congressional body, e.g. the Senate, removing a Federal Judge, who the Senate approved for his bench, and the removal of a sitting President who THE VOTERS approved for his office.. It should apply regardless of the accused's party affiliation.

[WTF]

You three numbnuts forget that the House can impeach at will.

I'm sure the next Democrat will be impeached if there is a GOP controlled House.

They were going to impeach Clinton in 2016 had she been elected with all that Benghazi crap. Shit Trump gets 30 of our troops heads turned to jelly and our resident Benghazi Wackos are silent.

Most of this stems from Gerrymandering and fucked up campaign donation laws. You got super pacs giving millions to extreme nut cases that win a primary on extremism where to other party with 40 of the voters has no say. Pitiful.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

You three numbnuts forget that the House can impeach at will.

The House can NOW, JUNIOR!!!

And .... "the shoe is on the other foot soon eough!!!!!!!!"

You and the deranged have really fucked yourselves now!!!!!!



But ... you're the one who proclaimed it was up to "jury selection"!

So, now you've exhausted your comprehension of the legal concepts!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The House can NOW, JUNIOR!!!

And .... "the shoe is on the other foot soon eough!!!!!!!!"

You and the deranged have really fucked yourselves now!!!!!!



But ... you're the one who proclaimed it was up to "jury selection"!

So, now you've exhausted your comprehension of the legal concepts!

Yes Perry Mason...the jury selection in the Clinton decision to impeach or not was majority GOP

The jury in the Trump decision to impeach or not was majority Democrats.

See a pattern?

Tell me again how unimportant jury selection is.

Hopefully the shoe will be on the other foot come this November!

How can a self professed legal scholar such as yourself not understand the importance of jury selection?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

You three numbnuts forget that the House can impeach at will.

not at will. there are procedures to follow. princess poollosi didn't follow the rules.


nixon and clinton impeachment followed rules, procedures and due process; not the trump impeachment which ran more like a grand jury with no due process.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes Perry Mason...the jury selection in the Clinton impeachment was majority GOP

The jury in the Trump impeachment, majority Democrats.

See a pattern?

Tell me again how unimportant jury selection is.

Hopefully the shoe will be on the other foot come this November!

How can a self professed legal scholar such as yourself not understand the importance of jury selection?

how can a self professed "idiot savant" like you not understand there is no "jury selection" in an impeachment trial? doesn't work that way. this isn't a civil or criminal case where Voir dire takes place. if it was, you do realize that all the remaining Democratic Senators running for President would immediately be stricken from the "Jury pool" yeah?


"Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."


butt u knew that, right Perry?

[bambino]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how can a self professed "idiot savant" like you not understand there is no "jury selection" in an impeachment trial? doesn't work that way. this isn't a civil or criminal case where Voir dire takes place. if it was, you do realize that all the remaining Democratic Senators running for President would immediately be stricken from the "Jury pool" yeah?


"Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."


butt u knew that, right Perry?

He doesn’t know much about anything. Except my asshole.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how can a self professed "idiot savant" like you not understand there is no "jury selection" in an impeachment trial? doesn't work that way. this isn't a civil or criminal case where Voir dire takes place. if it was, you do realize that all the remaining Democratic Senators running for President would immediately be stricken from the "Jury pool" yeah?

Voters select the "jury" on both impeachment and "trial" phase Einstein.

If one does not like the jurist...vote them out.

It is a political process. Addressed in the Constitution.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Voters select the "jury" on both impeachment and "trial" phase Einstein.

If one does not like the jurist...vote them out.

It is a political process. Addressed in the Constitution.

So ... by your take Senators are voted into office as jurors to impeach presidents.

if you say so.


BAHHAHAHAAAAAA

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So ... by your take Senators are voted into office as jurors to impeach presidents.

No, that is your take of my take.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

No, that is your take of my take.

your take is wrong. Senators are elected to serve the people of their State. show me one Senate election in history where impeaching a president was an election issue. i'll wait.


BAHHAHAAAA

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

your take is wrong. Senators are elected to serve the people of their State. show me one Senate election in history where impeaching a president was an election issue. i'll wait.

The upcoming 2020 election Einstein

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lection-089908

If I were to dig....maybe the 2000 election after the Clinton impeachment.

Your not to bright politically are yea...

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

The upcoming 2020 election Einstein

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lection-089908

If I were to dig....maybe the 2000 election after the Clinton impeachment.

Your not to bright politically are yea...

after the fact, jack. not one current Senator was elected for their view on impeachment. and it's the Democrats that will suffer the aftermath of this sham impeachment. why just think of the glorious accomplishments of Trump's second term when the Republicans control both houses again.



All Hail His Regal Majesty the Lord Emperor Donald, Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Your (sic) not to (sic) bright politically are yea (sic)...

His grasp of politics is light years ahead of your atrocious grammar!!