Here You Go Dimwits

[baddog]

Ari Fleischer: Impeachment stalemate 'the dumbest thing Democrats have ever done'

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

And Ari Fleischer is? Only time will tell what this all will bring.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

And Ari Fleischer is? Only time will tell what this all will bring.

Why hold back these articles of impeachment?

[BS Wildcats]

47 minutes ago, baddog said:

Why hold back these articles of impeachment?

Pelosi knew that the dims didn't have a leg to stand on with this impeachment.  She was pressured by the idiots Schiff and Nadler to proceed.  Now she doesn't want the real truth to come out about Biden's, Clinton's, and obama's dealings with Ukraine and Russia.  So she will sit on the articles as long as she can.

[UT alum]

On 12/22/2019 at 10:55 AM, baddog said:

Why hold back these articles of impeachment?

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

[BS Wildcats]

12 minutes ago, UT alum said:

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

She has no control over what happens in the Senate.  I'm guessing you called what happened in the House fair?

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

She has no control over what happens in the Senate.  I'm guessing you called what happened in the House fair?

Not entirely. The White House refused both documents and testimony from relevant witnesses. 

[Reagan]

23 minutes ago, UT alum said:

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

In American jurisprudence, fairness is for the accused, not the accuser.  So, since when does pelosie want a fair trial for President Trump?  By the way -- what was fair about what schiff and nadler was doing??

[UT alum]

9 minutes ago, Reagan said:

In American jurisprudence, fairness is for the accused, not the accuser.  So, since when does pelosie want a fair trial for President Trump?  By the way -- what was fair about what schiff and nadler was doing??

In American jurisprudence, if the accused doesn’t comply with subpoenas, they go to jail.

[baddog]

51 minutes ago, UT alum said:

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

Why weren’t these witnesses called during the hearings? The Republicans didn’t get to call the witnesses they wanted. WTF do you call fair?Actually, I hate the term. In order to be fair to one side, you have to screw the heck out of the other.

 The senate could throw this out because they own the rules now, not shiff. Pelosi is playing games. You supposedly have your charges, bring them to trial. 

[Reagan]

32 minutes ago, UT alum said:

In American jurisprudence, if the accused doesn’t comply with subpoenas, they go to jail.

Every president since George Washington has exerted executive privilege!

PS -- what did eric holder do here?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

9 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Every president since George Washington has exerted executive privilege!

PS -- what did eric holder do here?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

He’s black. He gets a pass.

[UT alum]

52 minutes ago, baddog said:

Why weren’t these witnesses called during the hearings? The Republicans didn’t get to call the witnesses they wanted. WTF do you call fair?Actually, I hate the term. In order to be fair to one side, you have to screw the heck out of the other.

 The senate could throw this out because they own the rules now, not shiff. Pelosi is playing games. You supposedly have your charges, bring them to trial. 

Accused does not have right to present witnesses in a Grand Jury proceeding.

[UT alum]

36 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Every president since George Washington has exerted executive privilege!

PS -- what did eric holder do here?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

“What about” Holder?

I don’t believe Washington was ever subpoenaed.

[baddog]

19 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Accused does not have right to present witnesses in a Grand Jury proceeding.

No, the witnesses Schumer says he wants to call. They could have already been called. Quit playing girly games. You know to whom I am referring.

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

Trump was never going to get a fair shake from the dims.  They have been concocting some way to impeach him since Crooked Hillary lost the election.  And again, you call their process fair?  Laughable!

[UT alum]

40 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Trump was never going to get a fair shake from the dims.  They have been concocting some way to impeach him since Crooked Hillary lost the election.  And again, you call their process fair?  Laughable!

He had every chance to provide all the exculpatory evidence and testimony he wanted. He didn’t because he can’t.

[BS Wildcats]

7 minutes ago, UT alum said:

He had every chance to provide all the exculpatory evidence and testimony he wanted. He didn’t because he can’t.

Didn't you, in almost the same breath, say the accused has no right to present witnesses in a Grand Jury hearing?  So, how can you now say he had a chance present such.

[UT alum]

He will, at trial. I believe the Chief Justice has a say in the witness’ relevance to the case.

[UT alum]

24 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Didn't you, in almost the same breath, say the accused has no right to present witnesses in a Grand Jury hearing?  So, how can you now say he had a chance present such.

He will,at trial. I believe the Chief Justice will have a say about each witness’ relevance to the case.

[Reagan]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

To be ensure a fair trial. Fair trials have witnesses and evidence. Impeachment hearings were not a trial.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has any say-so in how the trial is ran?

[BS Wildcats]

19 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has any say-so in how the trial is ran?

Don't think it does, but the dimwits wanna talk about Trump and the Constitution laws he has broken.  Guess if you're a dimwit, you are allowed to do what you want.

[LumRaiderFan]

53 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has any say-so in how the trial is ran?

Reagan, you’re talking to a Democrat.  Remember, to them the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

 

[baddog]

14 hours ago, UT alum said:

Accused does not have right to present witnesses in a Grand Jury proceeding.

.....and a true Grand Jury would realize there is not enough evidence to go to trial and the accused would be “no billed”.

[UT alum]

12 hours ago, Reagan said:

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has any say-so in how the trial is ran?

I believe the Constitution says that the Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments. Don’t say jack about how the House has to go about delivering the articles, other than they be physically delivered to the Senate.