New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why are the impeachment managers making their case pre trial

Spamature

President
Jesus Christ, are you ignorant or just enjoy lying through your rotted out teeth. Sessions recused himself in early March 2017: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322069-sessions-recuses-himself-from-russia-probe

Mueller didn't come along until late May.

Do you do this on purpose? Sometimes I wonder.
Okay REPUBLICAN Rod Rosenstein acting on Sessions' behave appointed Mueller.

Now all you have to show is where Democrats was involved ?

Ill wait; forever I suppose.
 

Spamature

President
your grasp of facts, and possibly reality, is deficient...

Within eight days, following a call to action by Democratic lawmakers and revelations by Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a former FBI director, to take over the FBI's work.

A special counsel investigation is subject to oversight by the Attorney General.[69] After questions arose regarding contacts between then-senator Jeff Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in 2016, one of the first things Sessions did after being appointed Attorney General, was to recuse himself from any Justice Department investigations regarding Russian interference in the election.[70]

Once Attorney General Sessions recused, oversight of any Russia investigation into the 2016 election fell to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee. As part of his oversight, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in May 2017 with the mandate "to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters".[71]
#40
 

Mick

The Right is always right
They have been presenting their case, I have a right to say whatever I please. Bullying by someone like you doesn’t intimidate me a bit. I’ve seen documents I’ve seen emails. Don’t tell me to shut the fu•k up.
Call it whatever the hell you want. If you continue to talk about a strong case while simultaneously whining that you need the Senate to go fishing for evidence then I'm going to mock you for it. Stupid is as stupid does.

Lulz
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The need for documents and certain witnesses cannot be fully appreciated in a vacuum. So the House impeachment managers lay out the surrounding factual background. Trump’s lawyers then stand up and ignore the facts, choosing instead to make Trump and the rabble happy by lying, whining about process, insulting Schiff, etc.
So, you to adopt the position that the house brings no thing to this Senate trial??
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
maybe if you had taken a law course, or had some knowledge of how trials and investigations work it would not puzzle you so. a foundation has to be laid, an opening statement, how one side is seeking to prove what a lying piece of shit extortionist trump is by using facts and sworn testimony, that could be further corroborated if the President and his henchmen did not obstruct justice, and how the other side is not even trying to defend what extortionist lying conman Trump did, they just blindly attack the process and hope the Trump voters at home somehow believe that is the same as defending by evidence that trump did not do what the facts show so blatantly, as in the Mulvaney video and the Sondland video. And the fact, Trump has forbidden any of those in his most inner circle who would have direct evidence testify under oath, because then their loyalty to his bullshit corruption might be overcome by their fear of going to jail for perjury under oath.

Do even trump voters not fully believe if Trump or his henchmen thought their testimony would help clear trump, he would be demanding they appear, and they would appear, both now and during the House Impeachment hearings?

why do trump voters try so hard to deny such obvious facts?

www.youtube.com › watch

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube

View attachment 47763

View attachment 47764▶ 6:44
Oct 18, 2019 - Uploaded by ABC News
The White House acting chief of staff said President Trump ordered him to withhold military aid in part to

www.youtube.com › watch

CLIP: Ambassado Sondland says there was Quid Pro Quo and

View attachment 47766

View attachment 47765▶ 2:54
Nov 20, 2019 - Uploaded by C-SPAN
In his opening statement at a House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Inquiry hearing, Ambassador ...

Sure Jim, why are the house manager is asking for more investigation now, when their responsibility was to forward a complete investigation to the Senate to evaluate
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
maybe if you had taken a law course, or had some knowledge of how trials and investigations work it would not puzzle you so. a foundation has to be laid, an opening statement, how one side is seeking to prove what a lying piece of shit extortionist trump is by using facts and sworn testimony, that could be further corroborated if the President and his henchmen did not obstruct justice, and how the other side is not even trying to defend what extortionist lying conman Trump did, they just blindly attack the process and hope the Trump voters at home somehow believe that is the same as defending by evidence that trump did not do what the facts show so blatantly, as in the Mulvaney video and the Sondland video. And the fact, Trump has forbidden any of those in his most inner circle who would have direct evidence testify under oath, because then their loyalty to his bullshit corruption might be overcome by their fear of going to jail for perjury under oath.

Do even trump voters not fully believe if Trump or his henchmen thought their testimony would help clear trump, he would be demanding they appear, and they would appear, both now and during the House Impeachment hearings?

why do trump voters try so hard to deny such obvious facts?

www.youtube.com › watch

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube

View attachment 47763

View attachment 47764▶ 6:44
Oct 18, 2019 - Uploaded by ABC News
The White House acting chief of staff said President Trump ordered him to withhold military aid in part to

www.youtube.com › watch

CLIP: Ambassado Sondland says there was Quid Pro Quo and

View attachment 47766

View attachment 47765▶ 2:54
Nov 20, 2019 - Uploaded by C-SPAN
In his opening statement at a House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Inquiry hearing, Ambassador ...

Sure Jim, why are the house manager is asking for more investigation now, when their responsibility was to forward a complete investigation to the Senate to evaluate
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
1. It's smart of the House managers to present their case while the public is watching.
2. Because McConnell and the Republicans intend to make sure no witnesses are called.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Sure Jim, why are the house manager is asking for more investigation now, when their responsibility was to forward a complete investigation to the Senate to evaluate
why do you act like you do not know the difference between a grand jury hearing, which is similar to a House Impeachment Hearing, and a trial, which is similar to the Senate Trial? are you just not real swift, or are you just acting like this is hard to understand?

All a prosecutor has to do in a grand jury hearing, where there is no due process, there is no lawyer representing the defendant, there is no cross examination, there are no defense witnesses, because there is no punishment involved, no possible loss of life, liberty or possessions, which would demand due process. All the grand jury does is find if there is enough reasonable evidence to indict and send to trial, not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of a suspect or defendant...

ARE YOU SAYING YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT VAST DIFFERENCE?

Just the two videos of mulvaney and sondland, two trump insiders, one his budget manager and chief of staff and one his personal diplomat chosen because he gave trump a million dollars for his hugest bestest inauguration, claiming the obvious quid pro quo, which was also backed up by about 17 other sworn witnesses in the Impeachment hearing, were enough to indict...and you are a goddamn liar if you say it is not. for any trial, for any crime, two witnesses with that much inside contact with the suspect both saying there was obvious extortion would be enough to indict, if not enough to convict.

and trump voters who have any measurable IQ are lying if they try to deny it.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
So much for the idea that the evidence speaks for itself...:p
of course there is enough evidence to convict. two videos from two of trump's hand-picked cronies. even without pompeo or pence or bolton or rudy. everybody knows it. even fox, even mcconnell. only a certain portion of the dumbest trump voters cannot understand.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
why do you act like you do not know the difference between a grand jury hearing, which is similar to a House Impeachment Hearing, and a trial, which is similar to the Senate Trial? are you just not real swift, or are you just acting like this is hard to understand?

All a prosecutor has to do in a grand jury hearing, where there is no due process, there is no lawyer representing the defendant, there is no cross examination, there are no defense witnesses, because there is no punishment involved, no possible loss of life, liberty or possessions, which would demand due process. All the grand jury does is find if there is enough reasonable evidence to indict and send to trial, not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of a suspect or defendant...

ARE YOU SAYING YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT VAST DIFFERENCE?

Just the two videos of mulvaney and sondland, two trump insiders, one his budget manager and chief of staff and one his personal diplomat chosen because he gave trump a million dollars for his hugest bestest inauguration, claiming the obvious quid pro quo, which was also backed up by about 17 other sworn witnesses in the Impeachment hearing, were enough to indict...and you are a goddamn liar if you say it is not. for any trial, for any crime, two witnesses with that much inside contact with the suspect both saying there was obvious extortion would be enough to indict, if not enough to convict.

and trump voters who have any measurable IQ are lying if they try to deny it.

Not how impeachment works. But nice Try.

House had their chance- and blew it.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
why do you act like you do not know the difference between a grand jury hearing, which is similar to a House Impeachment Hearing, and a trial, which is similar to the Senate Trial? are you just not real swift, or are you just acting like this is hard to understand?

All a prosecutor has to do in a grand jury hearing, where there is no due process, there is no lawyer representing the defendant, there is no cross examination, there are no defense witnesses, because there is no punishment involved, no possible loss of life, liberty or possessions, which would demand due process. All the grand jury does is find if there is enough reasonable evidence to indict and send to trial, not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of a suspect or defendant...

ARE YOU SAYING YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT VAST DIFFERENCE?

Just the two videos of mulvaney and sondland, two trump insiders, one his budget manager and chief of staff and one his personal diplomat chosen because he gave trump a million dollars for his hugest bestest inauguration, claiming the obvious quid pro quo, which was also backed up by about 17 other sworn witnesses in the Impeachment hearing, were enough to indict...and you are a goddamn liar if you say it is not. for any trial, for any crime, two witnesses with that much inside contact with the suspect both saying there was obvious extortion would be enough to indict, if not enough to convict.

and trump voters who have any measurable IQ are lying if they try to deny it.

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying Jimmy. If you can't muster enough intellectual brainpower to understand it, I can't help you. no matter how lengthy your screed, you can't obfuscate your lack of comprehension.

Let me help you for the record. The house was obligated to conduct a complete investigation and forward its contents to the Senate. The Senate is under no obligation whatsoever to conduct ongoing investigation for one of the most crucial acts in our government, the impeachment and potential removal of the sitting president of the United States

stick that in your pipe and smoke it. No amount of wise assery from you is going to change that reality.

Trump is not going to be impeached, not on my say-so, but based on the fact that the Democrat crazies did a shit job on their hate fest
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
of course there is enough evidence to convict. two videos from two of trump's hand-picked cronies. even without pompeo or pence or bolton or rudy. everybody knows it. even fox, even mcconnell. only a certain portion of the dumbest trump voters cannot understand.

LOL Oh my not the videos again ! LOL

So can we use the audio of Schiff getting punked by 2 comedians ?
 
Top