@kazetnagorra saidProven innocent, whatever..... If it is a trial, defined as " A formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt or innocence in case of a civil or criminal proceedings". Here you are, saying he 'cannot be proven innocent"?????? Do you expect me to miss my Sunday golf game today to sit and listen to babbled nonsense. ?? What you talkin' bout, Kazet? You are getting like some of your cohorts.
Trump cannot be "proven innocent" in the Senate trial. Once again you make an exuberant display of your ignorance about the impeachment process.
@medullah saidyou hit the nail right on the head. Hurray for my TEAM, boo for your team.
I'm from the UK; I know a little from researcheing the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Trump has held out on witnesses under a well established pricincipal of executive privilege.
Irrespective of whether or not you regard Trump guilty (I have good friends in each camp), the territory the Dems have strayed into with their approach to this issue is to make the president an ...[text shortened]... nd if they are having trouble getting them they should address their frustration through the courts.
party party party is what they care about, America takes a distant 2nd place.
@kazetnagorra saidThe constitution of the United States spells it out clearly.
If there is a legal statute saying it is illegal for Pelosi to delay moving the Senate trial forward, produce it.
The House of Representatives has kicked off the process. It is not an option at this point, for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is now her sworn duty and hence, encumbent on her to execute Congress' will by delivering those articles to the Senate.
If Pelosi refuses to move, she can be in contempt of congress and contempt of the constitution. Nancy Pelosi can never be a one person dictator. We have rules.
Treason.
@earl-of-trumps saidNow don't get these ole boys all ruffled up.....when we get them cornered, they disappear and we never get Mate!!!!!!
The conbstitution of the United States spells it out clearly.
The House of Representatives has kicked off the process. It is not an option at this point, for Speaker Nancy Pelosi at this point. It is now incumbent on her to execute Congress' will and deliver those articles to the Senate.
If Pelosi refuses to move, she can be in contempt of congress and contempt of the constitution. Nancy Pelosi can never be a one person dictator. We have rules.
Treason.
@averagejoe1 saidWhich part of the whole: “Getting a foreign government to help get dirt on a political opponent” is Pelosi guilty on?
Oh, the hypocrisy. She is holding back the Impeachment Report from the Senate until the Senate Does What She Wants.
Comments? Don’t all answer at once!
@averagejoe1 saidPelosi acts like she is watching out for America by making conditions on the Senate before she turns over the articles of impeachment. There is no provision of the Constitution or any law that allows for such a demand. She has a job, she should DO her job. It's her constitutionally sworn duty.
Now don't get these ole boys all ruffled up.....when we get them cornered, they disappear and we never get Mate!!!!!!
I wonder if the DoJ is going to give her a warning?! They should. It's obstruction at the highest level and most important state of affairs.
AJ, the mutton heads in here don't care about the law, the constitution or anything else but victory for the dems!! They're a danger to America
@Earl-of-Trumps
So for you it's WAY ok for Moscow Mitch ( a well deserved name BTW) to say there will be no trial? THAT is HIS constitutional duty not to make a sham of it. Notice, one E added to sham is SHAME. SHAME on Moscow Mitch for deciding the vote before even a trial begins.
Ok by you though.
@sonhouse saidWhatever the constitution calls for. It may not be "fair". Neither was Bill Clinton's sham trial but that's life.
@Earl-of-Trumps
So for you it's WAY ok for Moscow Mitch ( a well deserved name BTW) to say there will be no trial? THAT is HIS constitutional duty not to make a sham of it. Notice, one E added to sham is SHAME. SHAME on Moscow Mitch for deciding the vote before even a trial begins.
Ok by you though.
If you don't like the rules change them legally but obey the rules in the interim. You act like America has never been here before.
Johnson, a democrat, was found not guilty in the senate with the voting going by part lines. Clinton, a democrat, got a skate when all senate democrats voted not guilty.
Party party party. You loving it now?
@shavixmir saidBut, that sentence,,,,,,,'Getting a foreign government to help get dirt on a political opponent " has yet to be threshed out. Most folks, like the panel, have not been able to prove that, or, he would be in jail already. He must have been doing somethng else...???? Like, wondering what in the hell is going on, Slevenkya....."Can we talk about this crap, I represent the USA , and we are not ones to be messed with." "Are you finished with the corruption, because if not, eat our dust". Yeah, something like that.
Which part of the whole: “Getting a foreign government to help get dirt on a political opponent” is Pelosi guilty on?
@sonhouse saidHe says there can be no trial if nothing is brought up to the Senate, in a car, I guess, to the front steps. NOT via CNN or FOX. Brought up. You know, the congress settles the facts, and the Senate has a trial. What about this do you folks not understand?
@Earl-of-Trumps
So for you it's WAY ok for Moscow Mitch ( a well deserved name BTW) to say there will be no trial? THAT is HIS constitutional duty not to make a sham of it. Notice, one E added to sham is SHAME. SHAME on Moscow Mitch for deciding the vote before even a trial begins.
Ok by you though.
@earl-of-trumps saidOn the other hand, who is going to make her do anything? Why bother? Hey, Mitch, yall just go home. The ball is in her court. Ignore her.
Pelosi acts like she is watching out for America by making conditions on the Senate before she turns over the articles of impeachment. There is no provision of the Constitution or any law that allows for such a demand. She has a job, she should DO her job. It's her constitutionally sworn duty.
I wonder if the DoJ is going to give her a warning?! They should. It's ob ...[text shortened]... ut the law, the constitution or anything else but victory for the dems!! They're a danger to America
@averagejoe1 saidTrump's already been impeached.
On the other hand, who is going to make her do anything? Why bother? Hey, Mitch, yall just go home. The ball is in her court. Ignore her.
Who needs the Senate sham, uh I mean trial ??
The history books will be written.
Trump got impeached. Period !!
@medullah saidyou're observations are well founded, but someone will strike at me, because I am on the opposite side.. I still think something smells foul in the Burisma thing? Had he not been Joe Bidens son, would have have even been there?
I'm from the UK; I know a little from researcheing the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Trump has held out on witnesses under a well established pricincipal of executive privilege.
Irrespective of whether or not you regard Trump guilty (I have good friends in each camp), the territory the Dems have strayed into with their approach to this issue is to make the president an ...[text shortened]... nd if they are having trouble getting them they should address their frustration through the courts.
Politics is about money... it should be about serving he people.