Purge the resistance

Are you Corn Pop ??

 

He has done nothing wrong. The Schiff Show established that.

 

Quite the contrary. The DOJ is the farce. They just needed to find an Attorney General who would be willing to ignore the law and the facts in order to protect the President. Didn't work in the end, though. Barr did manage to convince Trump that he was above the law, but that's why he slipped so publicly in the Ukraine bribery attempt.

 

Nah. I prefer Rice Krispies.

 

Eric Holder.

 

In that case both the rules and exceptions should be respected equally as I linked above and Roberts can apply them without the Senate crippling the House case by refusing the proper admittance of testimony under an exception despite your biased opinions on the topci

Of course they will turn away actual evidence Graham has already publicly said he does not care what's in the testimony or report. He has already decided to nullify as a juror. He's the only one who has directly said it be we all know that this jury is 100% determined to refuse to allow any evidence or convict him of anything.

I long ago predicted this entire narrative. I have already posted a thread suggesting that the House impeach this president, send the articles and report to the Senate, and deny him a Senate trial and an acquittal, by refusing to appoint House managers to prosecute a case full of determined nullifyers. Let the Senate declare a mistrial and pontificate before a chamber empty of Dems, and we still have the passed impeachment and a full and complete public record in the House records for historians and voters to look at.

Then we all move on with 2020 elections.

 

Advocating due process is the antithesis of bias. The American culture and nation is based on due process. The absence of due process in the House Schiff Show is responsible for the percentage of independents moving against impeachment.

 

Dirty Devon is right in the middle of all of this

 

So, you admit to using the Powers of Impeachment as a political sludgebomb on Donald Trump? WOW. Thanks for confirming what I suspected and knew to be true, and the proper remedy is to give the power of impeachment to the Senate. To use Pelosi's words, it's too dangerous that a mob of the minority can impeach with its passions.

 

You mean the bribery that neither you, Schiff, or "anyone else on the planet" has been able to prove? That bribery. *Yawn*, nothing burger.

 

He certainly is. And thankfully so. And for exposing the dishonesty of the left now he is the target of the progressive media smear machine.

 

No American culture includes what happens everywhere outside of a courtroom and a detention setting, and a gallows. That is a lot of space without due process. The constitution is pretty clear where it is expected and where it is not. There is no 'due process' expectation in the investigations of crime or civil torts. There is no 'due process' constitutional expectation when neither life liberty or property are under direct danger from judicial reach. Stop lionizing what the founders never lionized, where they never lionized any such concept, for reasons specifically outside the purview described for your own rather convenient fantasy.
Advocating for 'due process' in the wrong places and times can also be the antithesis of a search for truth and a straitjacket for lawful order. That is exactly why its never been extended beyond the reach of a direct governmental threat to life liberty and property.

The reason independents don't support impeachment is because they don't see any point to it this close to an election when the Senate won't convict.

 

America was founded on the principle of fairness and due process. The American people will not tolerate anything else. The polling of independents shows this.

 

No. I admit to a political reality that the Senate will not convict even if Trump butchered a baby on the white House steps. That does not mean I believe that Trump should not be impeached for slaughtering a baby. The House will do its duty by passing the articles and providing every piece of paper, every deposition and every single shread of evidence at their disposal and thereby allow the Senate to do its duty. The Senate will refuse to even consider being unbiased jurors.

So the House will probably assume that it must prosecute the case that it called to be prosecuted in the Senate. That is because the Senate rules so proscribe, and past practice has been for a House resolution to include the number and names of the House managers, which have historically been members of the House judiciary committee. I have long suggested that the House ignore the Senate 'rules' and prior precedent and simply refuse to supply the prosecutors for the sham trial and let the Senate figure out whether it can find other prosecutors willing to be suckers for the whims of Mitch and Graham, or declare a mistrial.

I don't much care. I would prefer there is not one word from either the House or Senate Dems on this matter after the articles and report are delivered to the Senate The report, the articles and the House committee records and depositions can speak for themselves. The House has impeached and the House can move forward to the issues of the 2020 campaign, and the People's Business while the Senate blathers on to the yawns and disinterest of Schumer and friends in what it does with those articles.

 

So essentially, you want the House to have the arbitrary final word(well, to be clear, you want Madame Pelosi to have the final word) on Trump's guilt/or innocence(I use the word innocence here in jest, because given the fact that the speaker announced her 'inquiry' 48 hours before she received ANY information, shows her bias.)

Now, I want you my dear friend to realize that there are more than Democrats in America. There's conservatives and independents of various stripes(yes, actual independents. Not "moderates leaning".) The reason that it's looking 50/50, is because there's a HUGE push by independents against this nonsense, and the more that they understand what this is, the more the Democrats will lose the independent support.

The political sludgebomb will not be effective, because of the sheer obviousness of it. Instead, it will be the Democratic Majority that has to carry the noose on its head. Especially if/when the President is able to successfully argue the legality of his actions. That's why he's supported a Senate trial.

The lack of a trial, should it happen will also egg badly on Democrats. You have not "damaged" Trump's image(well, anymore then it can be.) You have however, made yourselves substantially vulnerable when back in April every candidate was 15-ish points ahead of Trump.

Can you see now, how mistakes were made?

 

The lack of a trial does not silence the defense of Donald Trump by republicans in the senate and it does not give Pelosi the 'final' word. Trust me, nothing shuts up a senator who wants to pontificate to cameras or brethren in the Senate. Heck they can even hold hearings on what an injustice was done ad nauseum and they can subpoena Schiff or Biden or Hunter to attend those hearings. All I would deny them is the fakery of pretending that the this republican jury isn't totally rigged to nullify, and this ' trial' isn't totally rigged from the moment that Moscow Mitch schedules it.

I just want the House to disengage from the debate and walk forward after the vote. Let the voters have their say in 2020, just as everyone has demanded. The House will be recommending his removal, but will no longer be actively participating in it. The Senate gets to decide what it wants to do without further House involvement and it gets the same control over the narrative either way. The constitution does not say a single word about the House playing any part in the Senate trial after it impeaches. Its duty can end with the vote to impeach.

 

Anymore than Schiff's crap was 'rigged'? That's a neat argument to make to independents(and it's not a good one.) But that bellies the point, in capsizing to "impeach that MF'ER", Pelosi has surrendered all of the political capital of the democrats into a poorly thought out, poorly strategized sludgebomb against the President.

It's a shame what the former intellectual and progressive party had become. A shell of its former self.

 

You still don't get it. Like any other American trial, this one is based on advocacy of two divergent sides of the 'truth' The police and prosecutors represent one of those sides as does the House in this instance. They can't 'rig' a trial on their own any more than Trumps lawyers can in either the House or Senate and they have no duty to be fair or impartial in either proceedings. Only the judge Roberts and jurors Senators can really rig one and they do have a duty to be fair and impartial. This Senate will not be fair or impartial, so there is no point in doing more than sending these articles and a report recommending removal and calling it a day. Let everyone go to their constituents and defend the role they played.

Nobody has screwed up anything. The record is there, the facts and depositions are there we are all the wiser because these impeachment hearings and debate has proceeded forward. The only thing that will waste time, is for the House to participate in the 'show' trial. No reason for them to show up at all.

All that is missing is a formal Senate vote to acquit or convict so that the people know where they stood. Is it really the House's job to force that vote, or the Senate's job to force that vote? I think it is the Senate's so let them figure out how to do it without the House.

 

You didn’t watch the hearings, did you? How can you be sure you are correct when you never watched the hearings?

 

I reviewed the relevant testimony, as did many. I just didn't "hear" what others would've wanted me to hear. That and there's the fact that the transcript speaks for itself.

Then there's the fact that I got to learn about how one of the "witnesses"(again, witnessing something you never saw and for most of them they didn't principally hear the information(IE: First hand.) changed his testimony numerous times, both in secret deposition and in the public hearings.

And PS.

Are you really essentially arguing "It's not possible for Schiff to rig his hearings"(because those closed door depositions is precisely the norm, despite the fact that he admitted himself that there wasn't classified information discussed), but it's possible for Roberts/Republicans to rig a trial.

ROFL, LOL. And we aren't "wiser" to anything, other than 8 theories about what happened, when the principal actors(Trump/Zelensky) have testified. And yes, we must and should have an open vote if an impeachment is going to move forward. A "secret vote" as proposed by a Reagan advisor would be even MORE of a black cloud than a simple impeachment.

Imagine the political resentment that a secret vote would create, President Warren wouldn't be able to get **** done, if you think it's partisan now, imagine the thought that they ousted "their guy", Garland times 100 million.

 

A pass is not necessary for no wrong doing. Rules of the House? What rule did Nunes break by talking to a key figure in Ukraine corruption which is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? I know the kangaroo court rules do not allow Republicans to call their own witnesses, but does that extend to talking to otherwise potential witnesses? Trumped up charges (no pun intended) get no quarter from me.

 

What possibly can be inappropriate about talking to a key player in Ukraine corruption? I know Schiff won't let Republicans call their own witnesses, but talking to them???????

Efficiency is not the goal of a constitutional republic. In fact it is detrimental.

 

In the middle of all what?????

 

The supreme court has ruled that in almost every situation congressional hearings must be constitutional and follow accepted due process.

Do you think removing a duly elected president from office does not deny him liberty and property.?

You should check out Amendment IX, also.

 

But impeachment is already a key part of the 2020 campaign.