OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[mathed]

[Don Pichardo]

I would remind Mr. Booker that it is no less suspicious for a prosecutor to secure an indictment without said testimony.

The distinction being that trial is where you present the evidence that was the basis of the indictment (accusation), to prove the accusation was In fact true. The confrontation clause mandates the accused to confront their accuser. To do that the accuser (witness ) must be brought in.

What do you think glove?

[Don Pichardo]

Election is this year.

Wtf is the point of impeachment now?

The point is to use this to try to win the election, dumbass.

It'll probably backfire like impeachment did for the Republicans during Clinton.

The point of impeachment is to Keep him from running again I imagine.

[mathed]

The distinction being that trial is where you present the evidence that was the basis of the indictment (accusation), to prove the accusation was In fact true. The confrontation clause mandates the accused to confront their accuser. To do that the accuser (witness ) must be brought in.

What do you think glove?

Isn't it the job and Constitutional obligation of the House to develop the case, present the evidence, and then relay those findings to the Senate for judgement as jury? I thought that was how the process works?

How can non-crimes, complete deprivation of Due Process rights to the POTUS in an unlawful House Impeachment Inquiry (no official House vote to authorize inquiry initially) even constitute any basis for a case at all? I'm no lawyer but this is a complete frigging joke.

I'm sure that if the Supreme Court were to review the basis for this scam, they would overturn the Articles completely, meaning..............................Trump was never impeached. Sorry Nancy, you are gonna lose this one too!!!!

[Don Pichardo]

Isn't it the job and Constitutional obligation of the House to develop the case, present the evidence, and then relay those findings to the Senate for judgement as jury? I thought that was how the process works?

How can non-crimes, complete deprivation of Due Process rights to the POTUS in an unlawful House Impeachment Inquiry (no official House vote to authorize inquiry initially) even constitute any basis for a case at all? I'm no lawyer but this is a complete frigging joke.

I'm sure that if the Supreme Court were to review the basis for this scam, they would overturn the Articles completely, meaning..............................Trump was never impeached. Sorry Nancy, you are gonna lose this one too!!!!

I think the house accesses the case first and determines if there is enough to proceed to trial. If the say yes then the senate hears the trial where the witnesses and evidence are accessed for their truth and a judgment can be had after all evidence and arguments are presented.

That’s how a criminal case is processed in state and federal court. I suspect it’s the same for impeachment with is quasi criminal in nature.

[Vlad_]

The point of impeachment is to Joseph him from running again I imagine.

So a partisan impeachment by the dems to interfere with the 2020 election, right?

[Don Pichardo]

So a partisan impeachment by the dems to interfere with the 2020 election, right?

Ha. Clever

[Vlad_]

I think the house accesses the case first and determines if there is enough to proceed to trial. If the say yes then the senate hears the trial where the witnesses and evidence are accessed for their truth and a judgment can be had after all evidence and arguments are presented.

That’s how a criminal case is processed in state and federal court. I suspect it’s the same for impeachment with is quasi criminal in nature.

Nope. House is in charge of finding all the evidence/witnesses and present the case. Senate’s duty is to judge the case as presented by the House.

[mathed]

I think the house accesses the case first and determines if there is enough to proceed to trial. If the say yes then the senate hears the trial where the witnesses and evidence are accessed for their truth and a judgment can be had after all evidence and arguments are presented.

That’s how a criminal case is processed in state and federal court. I suspect it’s the same for impeachment with is quasi criminal in nature.

I don't think so. That's precisely why the vast majority of the Senate is complaining about "having to do the House's job for them." The case is already supposed to be established, they review the witness testimony presented in the House trial.

This is what I've gathered from various interviews from Senate members on it. They are wondering why they are having to bring in witnesses when their role in this process is strictly as a jury.

[Don Pichardo]

Nope. House is in charge of finding all the evidence/witnesses and present the case. Senate’s duty is to judge the case as presented by the House.

What did the house present to the senate?