Indeed but that is different from just not caring what evidence there is. A jury should always care about the facts but can exercise nullification later if they think the law unjust.

There is no evidence of a crime....

There is no evidence of a crime....

Nor do these proceedings follow typical court proceedings. Different rules and structure. That’s an aspect that the liberal MSM seems to ignore.

That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.

Aside from the Russia issue they have their ducks in order now and the evidence is fairly compelling. I won't say anything stronger than that as I haven't seen what the defense side has to say.

Or maybe the jury has to investigate themselves because 1 side is making and has been making shit up since day -3 months (won the primary).



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There is no evidence of a crime....

Not only no evidence, the articles of impeachment do not fall under any of the descriptions of crimes that is supposed to be used to impeach the president. Meaning the articles do not fall under any of the crimes specified in the constitution: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Abuse of power is not defined any where as a crime of any type in any penal code. It is a made up charge. As a matter of fact, if abuse of power is a crime as accused by the House then every president since Washington has committed this crime. Precedence would rule in this case. Obstruction of Congress has not happened yet. And only until the president obstructs congress then he would be guilty of that charge. But this has not occurred as of yet. Because in order to obstruct congress he would have to violate a court order to not obstruct congress. Since this has not been brought to court by the House this has not and cannot occur. Even then this does not fall under any defined crimes I referenced above. So even if the president is guilty of any of the articles, which as Heavies stated there is zero evidence of, he still should be acquitted and the articles nullified because he has been wrongly brought up on charges that don’t follow the constitutions guidelines.

I was listening to Jim Jordan today. He was in all the hearsay witness testimonies that occurred behind closed doors. He stated that all of the testimonies that was submitted as evidence is all taken out of context. And every testimony will be shown to be misleading by their submitting the full testimony so the jurists can not only see that Schiff and Nader lied to them by omission but that if the context is added that it changes the entire meaning of the testimony. Considering the credibility of the 3 players I just mentioned I would put my money on Jordan being right. He has been right and told the truth for the last 3 years while Schiff and Nader have lied their way through this presidency.

Not only no evidence, the articles of impeachment do not fall under any of the descriptions of crimes that is supposed to be used to impeach the president. Meaning the articles do not fall under any of the crimes specified in the constitution: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Abuse of power is not defined any where as a crime of any type in any penal code. It is a made up charge. As a matter of fact, if abuse of power is a crime as accused by the House then every president since Washington has committed this crime. Precedence would rule in this case. Obstruction of Congress has not happened yet. And only until the president obstructs congress then he would be guilty of that charge. But this has not occurred as of yet. Because in order to obstruct congress he would have to violate a court order to not obstruct congress. Since this has not been brought to court by the House this has not and cannot occur. Even then this does not fall under any defined crimes I referenced above. So even if the president is guilty of any of the articles, which as Heavies stated there is zero evidence of, he still should be acquitted and the articles nullified because he has been wrongly brought up on charges that don’t follow the constitutions guidelines.

I was listening to Jim Jordan today. He was in all the hearsay witness testimonies that occurred behind closed doors. He stated that all of the testimonies that was submitted as evidence is all taken out of context. And every testimony will be shown to be misleading by their submitting the full testimony so the jurists can not only see that Schiff and Nader lied to them by omission but that if the context is added that it changes the entire meaning of the testimony. Considering the credibility of the 3 players I just mentioned I would put my money on Jordan being right. He has been right and told the truth for the last 3 years while Schiff and Nader have lied their way through this presidency.

jim Jordan is so awesome
he's is gonna shred things apart, especially if he is not constrained by time like he usually is by the rules

I still clearly remember that idiot Barbara Boxer stating during the trial of the draft-dodger that she "does not care what the evidence is, she will vote not guilty"

Did someone quote that HPD troll as posting something like "That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has."?

Gee, the liberals have been there, done that.

jim Jordan is so awesome
he's is gonna shred things apart, especially if he is not constrained by time like he usually is by the rules

During the witness testimonies that were allowed to be public, when Jordan cross examined them, he tore the Dems assertions apart. He has a way of putting things into context that clears up the bits and pieces released by Schiff and Nadler.

I did a lot of reading last night regarding how both sides are interpreting the constitution and federalist papers in order to bolster each sides claims. I found this article by National Review. It is long and complicated but worth plowing all the way through if you can. I don’t agree with everything they state here but I think they are trying to view both sides as credibly as possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/what-the-founders-told-us-about-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/

Here are the last two paragraphs of this article:

“Ultimately the best argument in the president’s defense from the Framing comes from the importance of the political process. First and foremost, the Framers believed that elections and the other branches of government would impose the primary restraint on the executive. A president intent on bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors would need the cooperation of the House and Senate to succeed in his plans, through either funding, legislation, or the approval of treaties and appointees. In such cases, the Framers hoped, the separation of powers would make it difficult for the president to execute any nefarious designs. “The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others,” Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” By pursuing their own self-interest, the other branches of government are meant to check any undue aggrandizement of power by the president.

Anti-Federalists worried that senators might have a political incentive to block impeachment when they had blessed executive conduct, whether by consenting to a damaging treaty or by confirming a traitor to office. Federalists argued that House impeachment would impose enormous political pressures on senators to try a president in good faith. But even if the Senate failed in its duty, the people would still have their say: By rejecting a president’s campaign for reelection, the people would render their own verdict. The Framers’ electoral check itself reveals the hollowness of Democrats’ ongoing impeachment quest, given that the next presidential election is just months away.”

I’m watching the opening of the impeachment trial this morning. Purpura is up and he played the lie that Schiff started this whole impeachment investigation with and just blew him out of the water as the lying scum he is. He is stepping through each sentence of the transcript showing Schiff’s statements as BS. 

Good synopsis of the situation thus far.

Good synopsis of the situation thus far.

I’ll watch this later when I have a little more time.

I ended up watching the entire 2 hours (not 3 as advertised). I have a few takes that I can remember from this morning.

1. Jay Sekulow kept repeating he was not going to repeat  like the Dems did. I found this quite humerous.
2. All the presenters were very good. Paused a little too much. Probably could have finished in an hour and a half but I won’t complain. It was powerful and fact filled.
3. I learned a couple of things. The subpoenas that were issued by Schiff and his committee were not legal since Schiff didn’t have a vote from the entire house authorizing him to issue subpoenas. Which is the way any committee gets its authorization to issue them. Trump ignored them for this reason. How can Trump obstruct if the subpoenas were not legal/authorized. This made so much sense about how Trump responded to Schiff. Before I found this out I was perturbed at Trump for just ignoring the subpoenas.
4. Trump’s foreign policy is tremendous!!! I honestly had no idea that he was so involved and having his people perform oversight on the aid that he signed off on to numerous countries. If the countries didn’t perform as promised he stopped all aid to those countries. It was actually quite common for him to hold up foreign aid if they didn’t fight corruption. Or if they didn’t spend the money the way they stated they would. I don’t recall any president in recent history doing this. If that isn’t fighting for America I don’t know what is.

The more I hear the more I am impressed by Trump. Even tho he likes to toot his own horn, the things that I think are very important, like foreign policy, he is not so much letting us know. I will bash him for not letting us know more about his foreign policy. But now that I know, I approve! This president just went up a few notches in my book. It’s a shame it had to take this impeachment to find this out but still. I have a much stronger respect for Trump.

I learned nothing from Schiff and Nadler and the House managers in 23 hours. I learned so much that I had no idea about in the first 2 hours from Trumps defense team. I’m looking forward to learning more about what went on behind the scenes.

I’ll watch this later when I have a little more time.

I ended up watching the entire 2 hours (not 3 as advertised). I have a few takes that I can remember from this morning.

1. Jay Sekulow kept repeating he was not going to repeat  like the Dems did. I found this quite humerous.
2. All the presenters were very good. Paused a little too much. Probably could have finished in an hour and a half but I won’t complain. It was powerful and fact filled.
3. I learned a couple of things. The subpoenas that were issued by Schiff and his committee were not legal since Schiff didn’t have a vote from the entire house authorizing him to issue subpoenas. Which is the way any committee gets its authorization to issue them. Trump ignored them for this reason. How can Trump obstruct if the subpoenas were not legal/authorized. This made so much sense about how Trump responded to Schiff. Before I found this out I was perturbed at Trump for just ignoring the subpoenas.
4. Trump’s foreign policy is tremendous!!! I honestly had no idea that he was so involved and having his people perform oversight on the aid that he signed off on to numerous countries. If the countries didn’t perform as promised he stopped all aid to those countries. It was actually quite common for him to hold up foreign aid if they didn’t fight corruption. Or if they didn’t spend the money the way they stated they would. I don’t recall any president in recent history doing this. If that isn’t fighting for America I don’t know what is.

The more I hear the more I am impressed by Trump. Even tho he likes to toot his own horn, the things that I think are very important, like foreign policy, he is not so much letting us know. I will bash him for not letting us know more about his foreign policy. But now that I know, I approve! This president just went up a few notches in my book. It’s a shame it had to take this impeachment to find this out but still. I have a much stronger respect for Trump.

I learned nothing from Schiff and Nadler and the House managers in 23 hours. I learned so much that I had no idea about in the first 2 hours from Trumps defense team. I’m looking forward to learning more about what went on behind the scenes.

When you watch the video, you'll see examples of how EVEN THE MSM was impressed, and how they complimented them on the use of ..... wait for it .... FACTS!!  All they could praise Schiff for was his "powerful" and "emotional" statement.  This should not be a case of emotions, but of fact.  Maybe the MSM is seeing that now?

When you watch the video, you'll see examples of how EVEN THE MSM was impressed, and how they complimented them on the use of ..... wait for it .... FACTS!!  All they could praise Schiff for was his "powerful" and "emotional" statement.  This should not be a case of emotions, but of fact.  Maybe the MSM is seeing that now?

Yeah, that surprised me when I saw that. To me this shows that the MSM all along has known the facts and has not reported them. They can only deny the truth for so long. And if you do you end up like CNN. 

There is no evidence of a crime....

There is quite a bit actually.

Or maybe the jury has to investigate themselves because 1 side is making and has been making shit up since day -3 months (won the primary).

They haven't been making this stuff up though, at least not most of it. Unless you think the managed to get Trump's own people to say false things about him.

There is quite a bit actually.

Saying there is does not make it true.

What's your evidence?

They haven't been making this stuff up though, at least not most of it. Unless you think the managed to get Trump's own people to say false things about him.

Please give examples of facts instead of general opinions.

Thanks for the synopsis Inspector. (The written one)
It was a good one.

And awesome to watch Jim Jordan shred ‘em.
Should be required viewing.

There is quite a bit actually.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.

Give him time to re-watch the last 20 Rachel Madcow shows.  He didn't take notes the first time.