Even if true, why were there no witnesses? If it's wasn't true, what could it hurt? Since when can a trial be voted to not allow witnesses?
That was the lower houses job. The only thing the Senate has to do is consider what Congress sends them. Congress presents the charges, the Senate tries the case based on the charges presented.. They don't have to call a witness.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Even if true, why were there no witnesses? If it's wasn't true, what could it hurt? Since when can a trial be voted to not allow witnesses?
The House called 17 witnesses all Democrat witnesses. The Republicans were denied witnesses by the House. So the trail had many witnesses. All that and not enough evidence to make their case. They had to ask for more witnesses to attempt to make their case. The House could have used a subpoena to have the witnesses they wanted. They knew they had no case. They knew what the Senate would do. They thought crying about unfair and no witnesses would help them politically. The American people are not as dumb as they think. Forever acquitted.
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Even if true, why were there no witnesses? If it's wasn't true, what could it hurt? Since when can a trial be voted to not allow witnesses?
The House called 17 witnesses all Democrat witnesses. The Republicans were denied witnesses by the House. So the trail had many witnesses. All that and not enough evidence to make their case. They had to ask for more witnesses to attempt to make their case. The House could have used a subpoena to have the witnesses they wanted. They knew they had no case. They knew what the Senate would do. They thought crying about unfair and no witnesses would help them politically. The American people are not as dumb as they think. Forever acquitted.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
Even if true, why were there no witnesses? If it's wasn't true, what could it hurt? Since when can a trial be voted to not allow witnesses?
The House called 17 witnesses all Democrat witnesses. The Republicans were denied witnesses by the House. So the trail had many witnesses. All that and not enough evidence to make their case. They had to ask for more witnesses to attempt to make their case. The House could have used a subpoena to have the witnesses they wanted. They knew they had no case. They knew what the Senate would do. They thought crying about unfair and no witnesses would help them politically. The American people are not as dumb as they think. Forever acquitted.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
No they did not block a subpoena. The Dems never attempted a subpoena. They just threatened to.
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
Under the Constitution the President has the right to claim Executive Privileged and not release documents or honor House subpoenas.
The House can then challenge him in Court, which they decided not to.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
Under the Constitution the President has the right to claim Executive Privileged and not release documents or honor House subpoenas.
The House can then challenge him in Court, which they decided not to.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
Yea, you guys really blew it.
FYi, executive privilege is not in the constitution. It was a creation of George Washington and even he stated that it would not apply in an impeachment investigation.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
Under the Constitution the President has the right to claim Executive Privileged and not release documents or honor House subpoenas.
The House can then challenge him in Court, which they decided not to.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
Yea, you guys really blew it.
FYi, executive privilege is not in the constitution. It was a creation of George Washington and even he stated that it would not apply in an impeachment investigation.
However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
Under the Constitution the President has the right to claim Executive Privileged and not release documents or honor House subpoenas.
The House can then challenge him in Court, which they decided not to.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
Yea, you guys really blew it.
They blew it big time and everybody knows it. Their party is in shambles right now. They don't have any viable candidates for the 2020 election, this was their last chance to pull out all the stops. They needed to remove Trump from office because they knew they couldn't actually beat him.
This is a Trump victory lap all the way. The state of the union speech and today's acquittal news sets things up for a MAJOR Trump win!
Also for our Democrat friends, I'd like to know in advance, what do y'all got up your sleeves for next time around? LOL!
Feel free to twist things as you please. But it is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court also ruled in the Nixon impeachment that executive privilege cannot be used in an impeachment inquiry
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
The White House blocked subpoenaed witnesses. That's the point. And since when can any trial vote on witnesses? The Senate voted when they were then to vote on guilt.
Under the Constitution the President has the right to claim Executive Privileged and not release documents or honor House subpoenas.
The House can then challenge him in Court, which they decided not to.
This will prove in the future that no sitting president with the Senate majority will ever be convicted of anything, no matter the evidence.
Yea, you guys really blew it.
They blew it big time and everybody knows it. Their party is in shambles right now. They don't have any viable candidates for the 2020 election, this was their last chance to pull out all the stops. They needed to remove Trump from office because they knew they couldn't actually beat him.
This is a Trump victory lap all the way. The state of the union speech and today's acquittal news sets things up for a MAJOR Trump win!
Also for our Democrat friends, I'd like to know in advance, what do y'all got up your sleeves for next time around? LOL!
Don't underestimate the Derangement of the Democrats in the House. There are still 9 months left to try for another impeachment.
Feel free to twist things as you please. But it is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court also ruled in the Nixon impeachment that executive privilege cannot be used in an impeachment inquiry
You just witnessed it being used in an impeachment but the Dems did not take it to the Courts. So your argument is invalid.
That is just a ridiculous statement. Must have learned that from Trump. Don't like what you hear? Call it invalid, a hoax, or a sham. Regardless of what you call it, that doesn't change the facts
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
And if what Day of the Dawg said is correct, and I think he is, the Dems never even issued a subpoena.
They issued multiple subpoenas - they issued them and they were ignored. The same subpoena were valid before and after the investigation was officially opened and were likewise ignored before and after the investigation was opened.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Republicans are no longer denying that Trump did something wrong
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters last week that Alexander’s thinking speaks to the position of many Republican senators. “Let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us,” Sasse said.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even went one step further, saying the president’s actions were impeachable, that he was guilty of the charges, but that he shouldn’t be removed. “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” read a Rubio statement released Friday.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even went one step further, saying the president’s actions were impeachable, that he was guilty of the charges, but that he shouldn’t be removed. “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” read a Rubio statement released Friday.
Granted, there's a handful of things I clearly don't understand about the impeachment process (or at least this iteration), but this totally baffling.
I say burn the whole thing (our current govt) down and sort it out from there.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
I say burn the whole thing (our current govt) down and sort it out from there.
And you know, I agree with you in theory. But here's where the problem comes in. That's what people claimed they were doing when they helped elect Trump.
Look what that moron has done. Be careful what you wish for.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Interesting the affect Mr. President has on people .... TDS has them now saying someone who was on Epstien’s jet and stood on his island multiple times is smart ....
I say burn the whole thing (our current govt) down and sort it out from there.
And you know, I agree with you in theory. But here's where the problem comes in. That's what people claimed they were doing when they helped elect Trump.
Look what that moron has done. Be careful what you wish for.
I know... ::shakes head::
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
I see the rapid demise of our republic. I fear we are going to see many President impeached as we move forward.
Any time you have a angry mob in the majority of the lower house, such as we see today, Presidents will be called on the carpet regularly.
What President Trump might have done or did is no worse that what Presidents have done for 150 years. Didn't President Obama get caught spying on the Trump campaign? He also used the IRS to target GOP members.
My point is this latest round of democrats are angry people. I hope some more level minded people begin to take hold on that side of the aisle..
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Any time senators of your own party admitted that a president tried to get a foreign government to interfere by investigating one of his political opponents your latest comments are meaningless.
Even his own party admits he's guilty. Somehow they just can't figure out that asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections is that serious.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Any time senators of your own party admitted that a president tried to get a foreign government to interfere by investigating one of his political opponents your latest comments are meaningless.
Even his own party admits he's guilty. Somehow they just can't figure out that asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections is that serious.
My words aren't meaningless. It has to be impeachable. I don't think it was. There were some shady dealing with Biden and his son. I don't think Biden is a spy, but it was clearly worth a look. The President has the authority to do that.
Carry on, I understand you and others are part of the angry mob I was talking about.
Just understand that Pandora's Box has been opened forever.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
man we've been in a rapid demise of the republican since 1781. slow down.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
man we've been in a rapid demise of the republican since 1781. slow down.
Time will tell if I am wrong. I hope I am.
When President Clinton was impeached, he did lie to Congress. However, everybody is going to lie about that. I didn't want him impeached and surely didn't want him removed, and I never voted for the guy.
This is more a political move over a point of law. Now that we have entered that realm, it's a bad day indeed.
Now, if a party doesn't like the President, lets bring charges, even if not true or partially true.
My hope is the Senate still maintains a degree of decorum. The House has always been full of hotheads. Seats change way more often then do Senate seats. You have lots of representatives who were elected on hot button issues, so they head to DC wanting to take it by storm. They have one district to please to gain re-election. Senators at least have to win a state wide election. Hot button issues are still there, but they have to appeal to a wide variety of people.
I guess what I am saying is you don't find many Senators whos last job was tending bar...and I am on a first name basis with at least 5 bartenders, so I am not putting that down.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
