PeterS

This meme below goes around and around on my Facebook feed posted by my conservative friends. Each time I try to explain to them that the House doesn't try the president but instead acts the same as a grand jury would in our own criminal system. Impeachment is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official nothing more. The trial is supposed to take place in the Senate but Moscow Mitch seems determined from keeping that from happening.

So do you get it? The house did not try the president because if they did there would be no reason for a trial by the Senate would there...

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

However it is the House's responsibility to have iron clad investigation, call "all" relevant witnesses, hold hearings with defense attorneys, the accused being able to question witnesses, call witnesses and based on this process of findings the purpose of the articles of impeachment includes all the above.

The Senate according to our founders and the constitution is to have their hearings solely based upon the articles of impeachment. They may "recall witnesses to clarify but its not the Senate's position to or requirements to call new witnesses or enter new evidence, that falls solely upon Congress to complete before ever sending the articles of impeachment.
The founders intended that if there were an impeachable offense, congress would have such iron clad evidence so the Senate would only have hearings on the articles of impeachment.

My point is this, if Congress didn't do their job in the first place and need more witnesses, the founding fathers would say "dismiss " .
Suppose there were a smoking gun document and genuine reliable witnesses that could in fact cause the Senate to remove the president. It still falls short of the constitutional process for impeachment because Congress failed to include said document and call the genuine reliable witness.

I suggest that the Ukrain phone transcript.......any place President Trump's name is present, erase it.
Then replace with President Obama...

Now read the transcript between President Obama and the newly elected president of the Ukraine.

I believe 100% that the Democrat congress leading the articles of impeachment only are using the phone transcript because it has the name Trump. It's not about the transcript, it's about the 2020 e******n and not one strong contender against Trump.
Biden, Sanders or even a few others would have a strong chance against Pence, Cruz or a few others in the spot light but Trump has better than 50/50 odds of winning from the current candidate's.
The fair question to ask "Does Pelosi have a political motive , along with others in the party?
Is it plausible that either party in Congress or the Senate would use backroom tactics?
If you can answer yes to either, than it applies to both.

Hope all is well with you Peter,
Take care
Jack

Tug484

It only took a few minutes of watching today to figure out the dems lied by exclusion.

waltmoreno

I don’t know how familiar you are with criminal law procedure but I’m very much familiar with it. And if an indictment is brought against a defendant that’s wholly lacking in evidence, any savvy defense attorney knows that the first order of business is to move to dismiss for lack of evidence. Here in Cali, it’s called 995 motion because that’s the number of the Penal Code statute authorizing that motion to dismiss. No attorney worth his salt would call any witnesses to bolster the defense case w/o having first made the 995 motion. The object is always to have the case dismissed. Not to satisfy looky Loos who wanna see the whole case played out.

Tug484

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I wish I could agree however the house did try Trump v****g to impeach and Senate is the trier of fact to see if Congress assertions were right.. The Constitution dictates the roles each play..Congress fabricated plenty from day one of Trumps win and were anything but unbias, much they put into play..It has been their mission to oust him any way they could..

What you say about it all being like a grand jury indictment theory is a Fair assessment....

American Vet

DASHY

Perhaps Adam Schiff (Harvard Law School graduate) should have consulted with you on legal procedures. Trump himself prevented the Impeachment managers from obtaining requested documents and witnesses because he knew such evidence would damage his case. My opinion is that this act by the president proves the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

This is from 4430 on a new thread just posted..
If they want new witnesses now why didn’t they call them earlier or they change their minds and decide they didn't want them during their “ investigation?
Bolton had said if Under subpoena he would attend, yet they never did it, why?

https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/168246311071477/

DASHY

Thanks for the legal update. In the case before us, Trump's attorneys are not worth their salt by failing to use the "995 motion." The impeached president has no savvy defense and there is plenty of evidence for impeachment.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

DASHY

Did you forget that the President of the United States has already been impeached by majority v**e in the House of Representatives?

DASHY

Because Trump prevented it. He obstructed the Congress.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Your 995 motion is a cali penal code not relevant to a federal issue for impeachment.. A motion to dismiss citing the reasoning of dismissal along with a senate v**e is required..
As for their defense coming up, look for other threads here to come or at least watch it and formulate your decision, not the propaganda your being told.. You’re smarter than that from what I have read of your posts...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Executive privilege is not obstruction and has been used by all presidents at one time or another....
Using a blanket because Trump prevented it is too broad.. Who did He specifically forbid? And why??