(38) comments Back to story

Gary Miller

Democrats called 18 witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. Then claimed they had everything needed to impeach the president and sent two false items to the senate. The Senate became the jury and when democrats found their articales of impeachment were defective they wanted the Senate to call more witnesses and claimed the impeachment trial couldn't be a real trial without new witnesses. In real trials the jury ( Senate) never ask for more witnesses. Many trials have NO witnesses. Democrats claim the non witness trial is a farse. Isn't that the perfect ending for a farse impeachment?

Emile Pope

Jurors don't get to decide if they'll have witnesses or to coordinate with the defendant. Or to state their verdict before evidence is submitted. Turning the clock back 70 years doesn't make people younger...

Carlos Ponce

Emile is confusing the type of trial conducted at the Galveston County Courthouse with a Senate trial following impeachment. Apples and oranges. Whole different set of rules. The impeachment was completely political, not based on the rule of law.

Emile Pope

That’s a bunch o garbage. When was the last impeachment trial where there were no witnesses? Sickening hypocrites...

Carlos Ponce

1999, Bill Clinton trial. The Senate reviewed the testimony of THREE witnesses who testified before the House.

2020, Donald Trump. The Senate reviewed the testimony of SEVENTEEN witnesses who testified before the House.

Carlos Ponce

Emile, the Senate called NO NEW WITNESSES during the Clinton Senate trial.

Carlos Ponce

"February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky. "

"rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial"

"rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial"

"rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial"

"rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial"

"rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Same thing was done in 2020. Only difference is that instead of videotape, the testimony was digitally presented.

Emile Pope

More of your garbage. The Republicans allowed NO witnesses at all. Did the senate ever do that? You’re becoming a joke...

Carlos Ponce

Apparently you are having difficulty reading my post.

In 1999, the Senate sought NO additional witnesses for the Bill Clinton Trial. Instead they relied on videotaped testimony from the House hearing.

In 2020, the Senate sought NO additional witnesses for the Donald Trump Trial.

Instead they relied on digital presentations from the House hearing.

Now if do not understand that, I cannot help you. I cannot fix stupid.

Emile Pope

Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true...

Carlos Ponce

"Repeating a falsehood " is what Emile does. Did you BOTHER to look up the information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

I've got proof of what I post. As usual when proven WRONG, Emile calls it "Garbage" and provides no proof.

Fact: No witnesses were called during the Senate phase of Bill Clinton's impeachment. They used videotape from the House hearings.

Carlos Ponce

Want more proof, Emile?

Try the Congressional Record from almost 21 years ago February 4, 1999.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/2/4/senate-section/article/S1199-3

The Senate voted 70-30 to just use only video even though the House managers wanted in addition to hear Monica Lewinsky live. The House managers did not get the request for a Live Lewinsky.

Emile Pope

The senators refused to allow testimony from someone with direct knowledge of the crime. And any additional evidence of the crime. Drop mic...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, your attempts to change history are pathetic. id you bother to read the congressional record on the Clinton trial in the Senate? I doubt it. You dropped the mic on your head.

Emile Pope

Your president is a crook. End of story.

Carlos Ponce

So Emile, Trump stole your hear again?[love][love][love][love][love]

Carlos Ponce

Time to buckle up. It's going to get worse even after the November elections especially after President Trump is re-elected. Democrats are running scared so they resort to hate filled posts. And this will be reflected in editorials, letters to the editor and online postings.

Bailey Jones

When you elect a man that a majority of Americans don't like, don't be surprised when a majority of Americans don't like him. When you elect a man who sows division, don't be surprised when he reaps divisiveness.

Trump is an emetic in the body politic. That's why you elected him. He's doing exactly what you elected him to do. And he's getting exactly the reaction you wanted.

Carlos Ponce

"majority of Americans don't like" We'll see, come November, whether that's true or just Left wing propaganda. I surmise it is the latter.

Bailey Jones

That's awfully Democratic of you.

Mike Meador

Divisiveness...just like you.

Jim Forsythe

It was true in 2016 as Clinton’s beat Trump by 2,864,974 votes.

Carlos Ponce

Once again, Jim, the winner is the candidate with a majority of ELECTORAL VOTES. Trump beat Clinton by 77 Electoral Votes - the ones that only count.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos we were not talking about ELECTORAL VOTES. but how many total votes they received.. That was the popular vote and Clinton won the popular vote by 2,864,974 votes.

This goes back to Bailys point, "When you elect a man that a majority of Americans don't like, don't be surprised when a majority of Americans don't like him"

Carlos Ponce

Get over it, Jim, " Clinton won"???? HILLARY CLINTON LOST!

Jim Forsythe

"Get over it, Jim, " Clinton won"???? HILLARY CLINTON LOST!"

Carlos, we were discussing popularly of Trump and not how many ELECTORAL VOTES he received,

Just because he is President, does not make him popular with the majority. As Baily said " When you elect a man that a majority of Americans don't like, don't be surprised when a majority of Americans don't like him"

Carlos Ponce

HILLARY LOST! Get over it, Jim.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, we were discussing popularly of Trump and not how many ELECTORAL VOTES he received,

Just because he is President, does not make him popular with the majority. As Baily said " When you elect a man that a majority of Americans don't like, don't be surprised when a majority of Americans don't like him"

Carlos Ponce

Hillary winning the popular vote is not an indication of her popularity then or now.

Keith Gray

Darn that pesky Constitution...

Charles Douglas

I wonder how many of those California and New York voters were ILLEGALS Jim. Just because the DEMS fight and go out of their way to import the poor and homeless from all over the world, as future voters does not mean the rest of America has to be hamstrung by their greed for power, and their obsession to turn this country into another CUBA, or Venezuela. They better do more maintenance with the AFRICAN-AMERICANS because many of them are wising up! We have a Constitution which the LEFT is always saying conservatives want to destroy. It is not conservatives who are trying to deny free speech by assaulting people on the streets, and on college campuses for expressing their ideas here. It is not conservatives who are attacking the Second Amendment right to own guns here. It is not conservatives who are trying to eradicate the electoral voting system the Founding Fathers set in place to ensure fairness for all states here! It is not conservatives who have made a mockery of the Checks and Balance system of rule in this country by ARROGANTLY proclaiming they would impeach a duly ELECTED President before he was sworn in, and tried time after time over four years to do so by hook or crook unsuccessful!! Everything set up for the greater good in this country, all of a sudden the LEFT is hell bent on destroying or tearing them down. Counter-intelligence, System, FISA WARRANT System, Destruction of ICE, Eradicating our borders, allowing anyone in, when American citizens are living on the streets. Decriminalizing drug offenses! Hiding criminals from Law Enforcement! Treating the world's poor and homeless better than our own! Russia and China are sending thousands and thousands of pregnant women into this country illegally and under-ground every year to give birth to children, then they leave and go home. The only reasoning for that Is the facilitating of future spying assets. Do the LEFT care? No! They just want Trump, can't get him, and for going on FOUR years they still have no earthly idea why they can't get him. It has not registered with them that they NEVER will GET HIM!!!

Jim Forsythe

Charles said, "I wonder how many of those California and New York voters were ILLEGALS Jim"

If you go by what Trumps integrity commission came up with , the answer is none.

If you have evidence of voter fraud, you need to turn it over to the ones in charge.

The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday.

In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who are both Republicans and led the commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the documents show there was a “pre-ordained outcome” and that drafts of a commission report included a section on evidence of voter fraud that was “glaringly empty.”

ARROGANTLY proclaiming they would impeach a duly ELECTED President before he was sworn in, “There's been nothing like this where you can have potential criminal charges,” New York Rep. Peter King said in a radio interview Tuesday. “You really could have a constitutional crisis here,” he added, echoing a similar charge by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner.

Other Republicans are already using the “I” word. “Assuming she wins, and the investigation goes forward, and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time, under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial," Texas Rep. Michael McCaul said on Fox News. “They would go to the Senate and impeachment proceedings and removal would take place.” Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson declared that Clinton could be impeached for “high crime or misdemeanor.” And Donald Trump, who has turned “lock her up” into a rallying cry at his campaign stops, said Wednesday that Clinton would be impeached just as surely as Bill Clinton was. “You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached,” the Republican nominee said at a rally in Florida Wednesday, adding that Hillary is “most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

“We know she’s guilty,” said House majority Leader Paul Ryan, “We just don’t know what high crimes and misdemeanors she’s going to have committed yet.”

As for the unusual timing, a giddy Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus explained, “We almost ran out of time to impeach Bill Clinton. By starting the process even before Hillary is elected, we hope to keep the process going for the full four years of her failed term.”

Some Republicans have been planning this for months. In October, 2015, Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama suggested impeaching Clinton if she’s elected, based on the email controversy.

Carlos Ponce

"Did non-citizens vote last year? California officials still can’t say"

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article223886630.html

Jim Forsythe

I guess you do not believe the voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration, that uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud. They found none. If you have evidence of this crime turn it over. If not. all you have is guesses.

Next you will say the following is true.

Ken Paxton

@KenPaxtonTXVOTER FRAUD ALERT: The @TXsecofstate discovered approx 95,000 individuals identified by DPS as non-U.S. citizens have a matching voter registration record in TX, approx 58,000 of whom have voted in TX elections. Any illegal vote deprives Americans of their voice.

2:37 PM · Jan 25, 2019

Charles Douglas

I want to also give a big SHOUT-OUT to my main man Big Mitch McConnell!!!!! The man is a political genius!!! In a political brawl, give me Big Mitch seven ways to SUNDAY! MY MAN!!!! He sent me a request for money on an email yesterday which I WILL take care of in a few minutes! [beam]

Gary Miller

Jim. The issue of voter fraud is clouded by election laws in seven states that permit non citizens to vote. Most claim they can only vote in local elections but have little or no way to separate local and federal ballots. Non citizens in those states are not fraud voters. Their ballots are. They are counted in the popular vote for those states. In 2012 it was estimated 11 million non citizens voted but it was claimed they were legal according to their state election laws. Federal election law should require states letting non citizens vote in local elections provide different ballots for local or federal elections.

Gary Miller

If non citizens couldn't vote California and others like them would be solid RED states. Non citizens voting is how Democrats took over seven states.

Carlos Ponce

So sad when Chuck Schumer is lying to the Senate and American people stating this was the only time in impeachment history that no live witnesses were called.

From the Congressional Record February 4, 1999

"The House moves that the transcriptions and videotapes of the oral depositions taken pursuant to Senate resolution 30 from the point that each witness is sworn to testify under oath to the end of any direct response to the last question posed by a party be admitted into evidence.

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 100, nays 0..."

"The House further moves that the Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance of Monica S. Lewinsky before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed eight hours, and in connection with the examination of that witness, the House requests that either party be able to examine the witness as if the witness were declared adverse, that counsel for the President and counsel for the House Managers be able to participate in the examination of that witness, and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its examination time to reexamine the witness following any examination by the President.

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 30, nays 70..."

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/2/4/senate-section/article/S1199-3

History shows NO live witnesses were called during the Senate trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. They used video testimony and transcripts. Let the record show Senator Chuck Schumer LIED.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.