@calfoxwc said:

I know, as soon as I re-read it just now, I said it backwards.

The senate does the trial, the house submits the evidence. something like that.

my bad.

We have the luxury of being able to admit when we're wrong.

Libs don't have that luxury because they're wrong way to often.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Sorry Cal, you're wrong.

I know, as soon as I re-read it just now, I said it backwards.

The senate does the trial, the house submits the evidence. something like that.

my bad.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Sorry Cal, you're wrong.

Which is pretty rare you must admit.

@gorka said:

No, its the Senates job to conduct a trial. The House gathers evidence, draws up the Articles of Impeachment, and votes to impeach. The articles of impeachment is presented to the Senate for trial.

As is often done by judges in regular trials, the Senate can also choose throw the case out.

Which I wish McConnell would have done, he knows full well the dems have no fucking case.

"The House gathers the evidence"..that is the key. The House gathers the evidence, that is their job and not the Senate's. The House isn't supposed to do a half way job of investigation and then leave it up to the Senate to finish the investigation like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are wanting. This case was supposed to be ready for trial. In fact the dems said they already had overwhelming evidence when they voted on the impeachment articles. Now they want more investigation? What happened to their overwhelming evidence they claimed?

@calfoxwc said:

FYI - Tex -

it isn't the Senate's job to conduct a trial. That is the House's job. The Senate decides if the House's case

merits a concurring vote. Anyone with any decency and/or seriousness has to admit the House dems ran a political dishonest FARCE.

So, of course, it's crap on it's arrival - it should be flushed.

Sorry Cal, you're wrong.

@calfoxwc said:

FYI - Tex -

it isn't the Senate's job to conduct a trial. That is the House's job. The Senate decides if the House's case

merits a concurring vote. Anyone with any decency and/or seriousness has to admit the House dems ran a political dishonest FARCE.

So, of course, it's crap on it's arrival - it should be flushed.

No, its the Senates job to conduct a trial. The House gathers evidence, draws up the Articles of Impeachment, and votes to impeach. The articles of impeachment is presented to the Senate for trial.

As is often done by judges in regular trials, the Senate can also choose throw the case out.

Which I wish McConnell would have done, he knows full well the dems have no fucking case.

it isn't the Senate's job to conduct a trial. That is the House's job. The Senate decides if the House's case

merits a concurring vote. Anyone with any decency and/or seriousness has to admit the House dems ran a political dishonest FARCE.

So, of course, it's crap on it's arrival - it should be flushed.

@texasag1969 said:

But he will not be found guilty and this will be a sham of a "trial". 

Yes, you're right. . .the House did have a sham for a trial. 

"we be impeaching him so he can't be president while in office and to stop him from being re-elected"

https://www.theblaze.com/news/sen-kamala-harris-calls-for-halt-on-president-trumps-judicial-nominations-during-impeachment

Sen. Kamala Harris calls for halt on President Trump's judicial nominations during impeachment

@texasag1969 said:

Bring on all the witnesses under oath that each side wants and get all documents wanted out by each side as well. The American people deserve to hear it all regardless of party. But that won't happen because obstruction of Congress has not allowed anything and Moscow Mitch is part of it now that he has openly stated he does not want any witnesses and he is in concert with the WH.. And truthfully the Dems should have pursued it all up through the Supreme Court. Whether anyone likes it or not there are some real Constitutional issues involved in the whole mess.  And if you catch any witness lying under oath, then prosecute for perjury.

It should be up to the American people to hear it all and make their own decision in Nov. 

But he will not be found guilty and this will be a sham of a "trial". Documents and witnesses will be blocked and our right wing banana Republic is intact and getting Russian help again to keep in power. Maduro = Trump. The other side of the same coin.

"Moscow Mitch" lol...now all republicans are working hand in hand with Putin. McConnell made a mistake when he said the truth that he was not an impartial juror but he was partisan. Schumer may say he is impartial or any number of other democrats may claim to be impartial but if you actually believe that I have some bridges to sell to you. In fact most of the democrats running for president have already called for Trump's impeachment even without any evidence.

The real sham was in the House where Pelosi and Schiff made up their own unfair rules. They voted to impeach Trump saying they had overwhelming evidence but now they want the Senate to go fishing to try and find more.  I thought they already had overwhelming evidence?  It is not the Senate's job to finish the House's investigation. I say send it back to the House and tell them to come back to the Senate when they have a case they actually believe they have evidence to impeach. Also Pelosi and the dems said they had to rush their impeachment in the House because it was so "urgent" and then Pelosi instead of sending her "urgent" impeachment to the Senate sat on the impeachment for a month before finally sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Yeah...it was really urgent.

Trump is guilty of the crime of beating Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for all the preaching from the democrats in 2016 that we had to accept the 2016 election results (when they thought Hillary Clinton had the election in the bag) when Trump pulled off the upset they are the hypocrites who never accepted the election results and now they are dragging the country through a political impeachment when we have a presidential election later this year....... but they don't want the voters to decide...)

It should be up to the American people to hear it all and make their own decision in Nov. 

But he will not be found guilty and this will be a sham of a "trial". Documents and witnesses will be blocked and our right wing banana Republic is intact and getting Russian help again to keep in power. Maduro = Trump. The other side of the same coin.

WSS

@fairhooker11 said:

the charges ( Durham investigations) that are hiding behind what the left is doing to deflect with the "impeachment"  are criminal in my opinion 

yes, much bigger than clintons blow job and certainly WAY bigger than watergate

IMO Watergate head white water or bullshit. I'd be surprised if Nixon actually masterminded the break-in but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew about it. And Bill Clinton is no fool I can't imagine he didn't smell a rat when he got involved with the minor-league land swindle.

But lying about fucking around on your wife? If that's the new standard for criminal activity we better start building some more prisons.

?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

So back to the question I'm not one hundred percent one way or the other but I would lead toward just having the majority throw the case out. If that's not possible I would Grill every opposition candidate and member of The Witch Hunt the way I'm sure they will grill every human being who's ever parked in the same lot as a member of the administration.

I'd like to see Trey Gowdy take them on he seems pretty Sharp. but again to be completely honest I assume those charges are going to rise above Clinton's blowjob and I really don't give a fuk.

WSS

the charges ( Durham investigations) that are hiding behind what the left is doing to deflect with the "impeachment"  are criminal in my opinion 

yes, much bigger than clintons blow job and certainly WAY bigger than watergate

@logicisforsquares said:

No one is forcing a gun in anyone’s hands. That is the difference. The ability to choose how you want to live is much different than making everyone else adhere to your personal convictions. If every possible weapon on Earth was available to the public, you could still choose to live without any as a personal preference. 

I'm completely aware of that my friend. But there are people think it's their Duty to put that right to an end. Along with plenty of other rights which you may or may not care to keep. And frankly I want my elected Masters to protect the ones that I do care about it. Even if I'm in the minority.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

So you don't want the master you pick to force the Second Amendment on the rest of the population? Come now.

WSS

No one is forcing a gun in anyone’s hands. That is the difference. The ability to choose how you want to live is much different than making everyone else adhere to your personal convictions. If every possible weapon on Earth was available to the public, you could still choose to live without any as a personal preference. 

@logicisforsquares said:

Not all of us but I prefer small government.

So you don't want the master you pick to force the Second Amendment on the rest of the population? Come now.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Don't we all?

WSS

Not all of us but I prefer small government.

THEIR president, who was completely corrupt, and lied/deliberately broke promises he made to the American people, and ran us

down all around the world - most notably, to European and Arabic countries.

He was a dirtbag.

But now, "everybody is just as bad".

I call bs. bigtime.

@westside-steve said:

Good morning gentlemen. In this case I don't think it really matters if you align yourselves with any particular party or for or against any candidate.

There appear to be two schools of thought any upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate. since Party Line votes seem to be the standard here there will be a choice.

Option one with 51 or 50 and the vice president boats the Senate could just throw out the articles of impeachment.

 Option number two would be to go ahead with the trial and call most of the opposition party members as witnesses presumably to unearth some embarrassing answers relevant to the case at hand or not.

What say you members of the panel?

WSS

What are the scenarios that can happen?

If they decide to take the route to call witnesses, I would love to see Hunter Biden and the whistleblower take the stand.

BTW, Joe Biden said if he’s indicted...he won’t testify.

I don’t know how he thinks he can get away with not testifying, he really can’t claim executive privilege because he’s an ordinary citizen.

But I digress.

If the Senate decides to take up a vote to see if they want to dismiss the whole thing, I would be good with that as well.

It would be like giving the House a big “F¥ck You”! ??

I'd like to see Trey Gowdy take them on he seems pretty Sharp. but again to be completely honest I assume those charges are going to rise above Clinton's blowjob and I really don't give a fuk.

WSS

WSS