It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[jamil]

I am fresh out of corn.

It's unnecessary really. I think people are kinda high strung lately. I thought it would be funny to pick a person who has obviously made up their minds and acted like they haven't to make the point that pretty much everyone has. I mean. I could have picked an avid Trumper for that too, but I thought Kut was probably most illustrative.

 

[KittySlayer]

Godfather marathon weekend and came across this quote.

Politics and crime, they’re the same thing.

Not a party specific observation.

 

[Doug]

Since Trump is essentially being accused of acting like a Democrat (Obama's deal with Putin to help him look good for his last election and he would be more flexible on missile defense after the election and Biden's quid pro quo that he brags about on U tube) I really don't care if he did anything impeachable or not.

The Democrats are so unspeakably corrupt that I don't believe they have any standing to accuse anyone.

It's like a mass murderer complaining about a car parked on a yellow line.

 

[Alpo]

I don't think so. It was just a joke intermingled with a point.

Katagelasticism

add that to your woke requirements


I think most of us were attempting to keep on topic. It is the third strike, after all.

 

[jamil]

Since Trump is essentially being accused of acting like a Democrat (Obama's deal with Putin to help him look good for his last election and he would be more flexible on missile defense after the election and Biden's quid pro quo that he brags about on U tube) I really don't care if he did anything impeachable or not.

The Democrats are so unspeakably corrupt that I don't believe they have any standing to accuse anyone.

It's like a mass murderer complaining about a car parked on a yellow line.

I care if he did something impeachable. I just don't believe what it looks like Trump did was impeachable. And even more importantly, this partisan bull**** is just plain not good for the country. The people who don't like Trump might like it, but I think that's short sighted. Removing a president from office should be bipartisan and have very wide public support. As I recall the time around Watergate, I think the nation could have withstood that. There was bipartisan support, and I think that a large majority of people thought he was guilty. But this isn't even on the same order of magnitude as that.

 

[jamil]

Katagelasticism

add that to your woke requirements


I think most of us were attempting to keep on topic. It is the third strike, after all.

Why are you calling me names then? Why are you still talking about this then?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Well that’s thinking outside the box. But I guess technically Bill chose to not use the box.

Oh he used a box, don't forget the new fangled cigar humidor storage.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm saying a little prayer for all those who just can't pull themselves away from the TV coverage of this circus.

I haven't watched any of it except passing news coverage. I dont like sham sandwiches

 

[IndyBeerman]

I am fresh out of corn.

Want some CM? I got plenty of Orville Redenbacher's Microwave Movie Theater Butter Popcorn. My BP has went down 80 points.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm calling it gratuitous.
If Kut had responded, we'd have 15 pages of responses about his response and a popcorn icon from CM.

I don't think so. It was just a joke intermingled with a point. So instead we're gonna have you complaining about a joke? So you're offended on his behalf? C'mon man. No one's trying to tweak anyone here. No need for feathers ruffled. And please, let's get back to the discussion. And I won't even mind of you joke while making a point. It's okay. I doubt Kut was offended by it. No need for you to be.

While I appreciate you looking out, Alpo, I'm not offended. Unlike others, I have never known Jamil to address me with malicious intent. Sure he's forgetful on a whole never level, but he's not cut from that cloth (at least toward me).

 

[churchmouse]

Want some CM? I got plenty of Orville Redenbacher's Microwave Movie Theater Butter Popcorn. My BP has went down 80 points.

For strolling through these threads we require straight up off the stove made in oil popcorn.
With real butter and salt. Copious amounts of both.

 

[churchmouse]

It's unnecessary really. I think people are kinda high strung lately. I thought it would be funny to pick a person who has obviously made up their minds and acted like they haven't to make the point that pretty much everyone has. I mean. I could have picked an avid Trumper for that too, but I thought Kut was probably most illustrative.

Not my point. I see what you are about.

I am just saying I have smashed through my give a . The MSM and that ilk have worn me down.

 

[wtburnette]

Not my point. I see what you are about.

I am just saying I have smashed through my give a . The MSM and that ilk have worn me down.

Exactly. The Dems and MSM have "cried wolf" so often and are so partisan, there is nothing they could say and no evidence they could bring that would make me believe Trump should be impeached. They have shown themselves to only want to overturn the 2016 election results. Nothing else matters to them and it shows.

 

[churchmouse]

Exactly. The Dems and MSM have "cried wolf" so often and are so partisan, there is nothing they could say and no evidence they could bring that would make me believe Trump should be impeached. They have shown themselves to only want to overturn the 2016 election results. Nothing else matters to them and it shows.

It shows only to someone with a real brain.

 

[two70]

It amazes me that people still seriously think the Democrats actually want to call witnesses in the Senate where they have little or no control. I get that the anti Trump folks here and elsewhere would because they have nothing to lose so any chance of damaging Trump must be pursued. Those in the Senate and especially those in the house though, have something to lose if this sham is fully exposed along. The absolute best case scenario is that they slip one through the SC and Executive Privilege is curtailed for a witness or two and they can successfully keep the whistleblower from testifying. Even then Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff pleading the 5th is going to do some damage. Just as likely if not more so though, Executive Privilege is upheld, the whistleblower is forced to take the stand, and Schiff perjures himself. That is a lot of risk for little or no gain.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

A very short watch.

[video=youtube;ySdqtwiQMiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdqtwiQMiw[/video]

 

[jamil]

While I appreciate you looking out, Alpo, I'm not offended. Unlike others, I have never known Jamil to address me with malicious intent. Sure he's forgetful on a whole never level, but he's not cut from that cloth (at least toward me).

Oh. The old "whole never level." Which is to say, not at all forgetful.

 

[jamil]

Has anyone seen my car keys?

 

[chipbennett]

Change what rules? I was under assumption that the Senate can subpoena witnesses. Is that incorrect? That was a rhetorical question. Obviously no rules would be changed in the Senate doing so. Now I agree, the House should’ve subpoenaed Bolton themselves, but in their rush to push impeachment through, combined with the fact the WH blocked ever other person from testifying, they just decided to move forward. Still, the didn’t do their job the correct way, and should be criticized for it. Nevertheless, the House not doing its job, doesn’t justify (if one is actually seeking the truth) the Senate not doing theirs.

Per prior precedent (admittedly, of which there is very little), any witnesses subpoenaed by the Senate in an impeachment trial were only witnesses that were originally subpoenaed under the auspices of a formally congressional-authorized impeachment investigation, be that by an independent investigator or by a House committee. In either case, the House voted to delegate its constitutional impeachment authority to a given House committee (typically, Judiciary), and/or directly or through a thus-empowered committee, an appointed independent investigator.

If the House wanted to subpoena/depose Bolton or any other witnesses, they should have done so, under the auspices of a formally House-authorized impeachment investigation. The House never did so.

The fatal flaw in the Pelosi process is that she never followed this process. She never had the House vote to delegate its impeachment authority to a House committee. Thus, all the "subpoenas" were actually not subpoenas, because they carried no enforcement/penalty mechanism. So (intentionally and by design), the House never had any real authority to subpoena/depose witnesses such as Bolton. The entire process was designed to compel such testimony through the Senate.

 

[chipbennett]

It would have pushed the impeachment hearing out for an extended period of time, according to Pelosi. To some extent, that makes sense.

Will subpoenas be needed in the Senate trial? There is a Supreme Court justice in situ. I would hazard a guess that he can rule on the witness issue without delay.

The Chief Justice will not, and should not. Prior SCOTUS rulings make absolutely clear that the Senate, and the Senate alone, has the authority to determine how the Senate conducts impeachment trials. SCOTUS (through the Chief Justice) intervening would be an obvious and egregious violation of separation of powers.