LIVE LINKS: IMPEACHMENT TRIAL - Wednesday, Feb. 05, 2020... PRESIDENT TRUMP ACQUITTED !!!

1. Democrats called all witnesses in the House and allowed ZERO Republican witnesses. 2. If Republicans allow witnesses they can invoke their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. 3. As for the President invoking Executive Privilege if members of his administration testify, ie. Bolton, Chief Justice Roberts can rule on that immediately if he is called on to do so. My thought is if Republicans allow witnesses then all witnesses should provide sworn WRITTEN testimony (affidavits) before testifying in person, making certain that only truthful testimony makes it into the record and they dont get doubled crossed by witnesses invoking the 5th....the wild card here is that Republicans can get the testimony they want in advance but the President can swoop in at the last second and invoke Executive Privilege on Bolton and knee cap the Dems.

Can we guess which slimy rhino leaked the news on the McConnell not having enough votes

There seem to be conflicting stories on the this

Well, now we know that every single Dem is planning on voting for Impeachment, along with the Fuckhead Four. Now the question is, how many more secret RINOs will there be, and what were they promised or threatened with to make them betray their Country and their President.

This is just about voting to hear from witnesses No republicans have changed their mind about impeachment so far

Sean Hannity invites Bolton to speak out on his show:
'You have something to say, John? Come here'

..."I have a message for John Bolton tonight. You have
something to say, John? Come here," Hannity said. "You
worked here. This is your old home. Come on the show.
Have your say."...


[link to www.foxnews.com (secure)]

From McConnell’s chief of staff

Not a single republican has wavered on the not guilty verdict, in fact some are even more convinced

He says it’s too early to even speak about a vote on witnesses, let’s get through the Q & A

3 Dems are considering to acquit, plus DiFi stated the people should vote, but she walked it back

If witnesses are allowed and are subpoenaed, and the subpoena is challenged and brought before the courts, that will cause the trial to halt and be postponed, possibly for months while the litigation takes place. And, then there is the issue that one of the Supreme Court Justices is sitting in on Impeachment trial which would pose a conflict of interest. This is exactly why the issue of witnesses is brought before the House during Impeachment and not during the Trial in the Senate. You cannot compel testimony of a witness per the Constitution. Your rights do not evaporate because the trial has already commenced. Executive privilege does not vanish once the trial starts. If the Senate votes to allow witnesses, it is, in effect, a vote to disregard the Constitutional provision stating that the Sole Power of Impeachment lies in the House. It will amount to the Senate voting themselves the authority to supersede the Constitution giving themselves the power to conduct the Impeachment inquiry hearings and investigations and having it occur simultaneously with the Impeachment Trial. It will also lend authenticity to the illegal and unconstitutional way the House began the Impeachment. The Constitution says the Sole Power of Impeachment lies in the House, which is comprised of 435 members but it began with one person, Nancy Pelosi on September 24, declaring a formal impeachment inquiry into the President and then delegating committees to the task. The Constitution does not give the Power of Impeachment to the Speaker of the House but to the entire body of the House. As the House did not give the authority through an official vote, Pelosi did not have the legal and Constitutional authority to delegate committees to began a formal Impeachment Inquiry into the President with subpoena powers. The entire Impeachment procedure, from its inception, is flawed and the Senate cannot repair all of the legal and Constitutional violations that have been committed by the House, even by calling additional witnesses. The only option at this point of rectifying this entire event is to acquit the President of all charges levied against him by the House. To continue this Impeachment trial is to overturn the United States Constitution, to abolish the Rule of Law and it gives ultimate authority to the House over, not only the entire Executive Branch, but also over the Judicial Branch. To lend credence to this Impeachment sets a new precedent that voids the Constitution and destroys all Constitutional protections of every American, not just the Chief Executive. To lend credence to this Impeachment will make the Speaker of the House, in effect, a dictator, and the Speaker's party members the Gestapo that ensures that their power is not challenged.

Thanks for the update. I got up early, made a pot of
coffee, and now waiting for the Q/A session to begin.

Thanks to Scrump for finding the article.....


Lev Parnas can’t attend impeachment trial because of ankle monitor


A Ukrainian-born former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani who wants to testify at the Senate impeachment trial was given tickets to the proceeding by House Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s office, but will not be able to go after a federal judge denied his request to remove his ankle monitor.


[link to www.washingtonpost.com (secure)]




.

Thread: Diane Feinstein a “Maybe” On Impeachment...UPDATED + 4 Dems

Their star witness.

Why have they not provided said evidence beforehand? Why is it such a big deal they have to provide it now after all this time has past?

Fucking circus.

Meanwhile banks fuck us all

Thanks for all your insight and posts I hope it’s clearly announced who’s question is being asked and who answers Will be very interesting to hear them Wonder if the judge has the power to discard any that are inflammatory or irrelevant ?

The way the process was described last week, the justice picks the questions, ostensibly to cull the double and triple questions but I bet he can discard some.

b/c it's not really evidence. They know the rules - the house gathers evidence and presents it to the senate - the senate should not be gathering evidence; they are to review the evidence provided that collectively resulted in articles to be validated as such. The house has be re-writing the rules the entire path - they are attempting to continue the shame shit and DEMAND the rules be changed for them and only them.

Complete BS and they know it - Let's just see how chief our chief justice is..... :)

b/c it's not really evidence. They know the rules - the house gathers evidence and presents it to the senate - the senate should not be gathering evidence; they are to review the evidence provided that collectively resulted in articles to be validated as such. The house has be re-writing the rules the entire path - they are attempting to continue the shame shit and DEMAND the rules be changed for them and only them.

Complete BS and they know it - Let's just see how chief our chief justice is..... :)

Both Parnas and Bolton presented relevant evidence after the House finished, before the Senate question and vote on witnesses phase. Judge is well aware of the timeline here.

Some claim Parnas is unreliable, however he produced 'specific' evidence two months ago that was reported publicly and last week Furman's tape validating his claims. I for one don't consider him a psychic or paranormal shape-shifting time traveler.

We'll likely hear questions pertaining to these issues that might be tailored for the Judge also - even though he won't answer he'll still hear them.

No one has really been clear about this. The vp generally breaks ties in the senate but owing to the object of their affection he gets disqualified and in steps the chief justice who almost seems to have too much autonomous power here?