No, I already corrected that. They were allowed to participate in all house proceedings whether they were public or closed door.

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

What specific due process was denied Trump?

---

Donald Trump has still not been able to provide or cross examine witnesses, or face his accusers.


The trial has not been completed, but the impeachment itself completely lacked due process.

---

That's what the trial is for.

If due process is denied whenever a potential defendant doesn't get to face or cross examine witnesses during the investigation, does that mean that we have to clear out the jails and the prisons?

Trump did have the opportunity to be represented in front of the House judicial committee but he turned them down. That's on him, not the House.

This really starting to play out like a script. The Demorats now want Bolton to testify and the Republicans can drag in Hunter. This has to be planned.

Krautag81 said:

---

This really starting to play out like a script. The Demorats now want Bolton to testify and the Republicans can drag in Hunter. This has to be planned.

---

The democrats always wanted Bolton to testify. If Trump wanted witnesses, it would have been agreed to beforehand.

Mtn_Guide said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Mtn_Guide said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

You mean all criminal defendants have their prosecutors and jury meet in closed-door meetings without any defense present?

---

When did the House managers meet with the Senate without any defense present?

---

They had house meetings without any republicans around. You will have to please tell me that's a normal proceeding.

---

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Democrats on a committee meets to discuss matters among themselves and the Republicans on a committee meets to discuss matters among themselves. I certainly don't see anything wrong with that.

If it was for the purpose of gathering testimony and the Republicans on the committee were barred from attending, then that would be a problem. Did that happen? As I understand it, the Republican members of the committees were allowed to ask questions although one did get told to stop when trying to find ouit who the leaker was.

I also remember that at one point, a number of Republicans not on the committee tried to gain admission as a publicity stunt.

It is true that the committees did meet in secret in the same way that the committees investigating Benghazi met in secret. Do you think that the Republican hearings into Benghazi should have been public and that Hillary Clinton should have been represented at the hearings by her own lawyers and that her own lawyers should have been permitted to question the witnesses?

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

T

---

---

---

---

That's a lie. What I'm saying is that what Trump did had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the treaty -- he was not trying to follow the treaty by any stretch of the imagination.

What I have said over and over is that the proper authorities to investigate Biden is the Department of Justice unless you don't want them to ever be convicted. But yeah, if you want a sham investigation that has nothing to do with justice, then Trump was doing it just right.

---

Quote from Bondi from the hearings today:

Quote:

---

On July 25, 2019, three days later President Trump speaks with President Zelensky. He says there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So, whatever you can do with this Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. You can look into that. It looks horrible to me.

---

Case. Is. Over.

You can in no way possible construe Trump asking Zelensky to provide information about Biden stopping the prosecution of Burisma to the head of the Department of Justice as anything other than the president doing his job.

---

Actually, I'm in favor of prosecuting Biden. If that happens at all, it will happen here, not in the Ukraine.

BusterAg said:

---

From SpreadsheetAg, quoting WH defense team:

Quote:

---

Philbin

3 fundamental flaws with process:

1. Impeachment process originating in the house was unconstitutional - cannot begin in committee. Must begin in chamber (full chamber). Pelvis lacked authority to convene without a full vote. Over 200 subpoenas are invalid / u authorized with no compilation of executive to respond to them.

---

---

I'm curious what part of the Constitution mandates that an impeachment begin with a full vote.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

2. House Democrats denied POTUS due process over the procedures they used to conduct the inquiry. <shows previous clips of Nadler during Clinton Impeachment calling for same due process>. Do not confuse this process used by house committee(s) with comparisons to grand juries - they would have committed criminal violations if it were a grand jury by publishing witness lists and publicizing accused. It was a show trial. In 3rd round, Nadler used (legal term) Unconstitutional Conditions to try and bait president into giving up constitutional rights to gain other constitutional rights (look it up; can't do it)

---

---

It is clear that a grand jury proceeding and a house committee meeting are not the same thing. The argument seems to me to be more of an attempt at deflection rather than a disucssion of the points, though. I fully agree that the Democrats in the House botched it all up. A special prosecutor of some kind would have been far better for an investigation than doing it through House committees.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3. The whole foundation of the process was tainted because one of the Chairs was also a fact witness. Which introduced bias into the process and shielded the Chair from scrutiny to his motives, history, and evidence.

---

---

Once again, a special prosecutor would have been a better option.

So how did all this deprive Trump of his due process?

This has been answered over a hundred times here. You just don't like the answer or understand it.

oops - double post

Ubitag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

What specific due process was denied Trump?

---

Donald Trump has still not been able to provide or cross examine witnesses, or face his accusers.


The trial has not been completed, but the impeachment itself completely lacked due process.

---

That's what the trial is for.

If due process is denied whenever a potential defendant doesn't get to face or cross examine witnesses during the investigation, does that mean that we have to clear out the jails and the prisons?

Trump did have the opportunity to be represented in front of the House judicial committee but he turned them down. That's on him, not the House.

---

You are not watching the process, u would know the first 71 days Trump was not allowed due process, only the last 7 days he was offered a limited process, stripped of executive privileged.

The next Democrat President will impeached with a Republican house, and by your rules the senate will do the leg work.

---

Define due process.

How was Trump denied due process during the first 71 days? Precisely which due process rights were denied.

How were his due process rights denied when he decided not to show up at or be represented at the judiciary committee hearings?

Define executive privilege.

How was he stripped of his executive privileges?

Edited.

A summarized quote from said book, President Trump was granting favors to autocrats, per Bolton. Also it seems this book was leaked by the someone at the WH at an inopportune time for the WH counsel, they were the only ones who had a copy since 30DEC?

Runway is quickly running out for both sides in this debacle, God help us all!

Definitely trust that guy, never stretches the truth.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

What specific due process was denied Trump?

---

Donald Trump has still not been able to provide or cross examine witnesses, or face his accusers.


The trial has not been completed, but the impeachment itself completely lacked due process.

---

That's what the trial is for.

If due process is denied whenever a potential defendant doesn't get to face or cross examine witnesses during the investigation, does that mean that we have to clear out the jails and the prisons?

Trump did have the opportunity to be represented in front of the House judicial committee but he turned them down. That's on him, not the House.

---

Trump was given an opportunity for representation 2 days out of the 40 it took them to investigate. There were no fact witnessses present.

The house ran a sham investigation. And to this point Trump still hasn't gotten the chance to call witnesses or cross examine. So his due process has not been met AT ALL.

I think it will be after arguments. But your goaltending is weak.

eric76 said:

---

Ubitag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

What specific due process was denied Trump?

---

Donald Trump has still not been able to provide or cross examine witnesses, or face his accusers.


The trial has not been completed, but the impeachment itself completely lacked due process.

---

That's what the trial is for.

If due process is denied whenever a potential defendant doesn't get to face or cross examine witnesses during the investigation, does that mean that we have to clear out the jails and the prisons?

Trump did have the opportunity to be represented in front of the House judicial committee but he turned them down. That's on him, not the House.

---

You are not watching the process, u would know the first 71 days Trump was not allowed due process, only the last 7 days he was offered a limited process, stripped of executive privileged.

The next Democrat President will impeached with a Republican house, and by your rules the senate will do the leg work.

---

Define due process.

How was Trump denied due process during the first 71 days? Precisely which due process rights were denied.

How were his due process rights denied when he decided not to show up at or be represented at the judiciary committee hearings?

Define executive privilege.

How was he stripped of his executive privileges?

---

This better lays it out.

How can he cross examine or call fact witnesses if he was only given access to the pathetic "constitutional" discussion attempted by nadler

Don't feed the ignorant ******* trolls! Simply flag and move on.

Starting to think this book doesn't make Trump look good and Bolton might not get invited to Mar e Lago for tea.

22 freaking pages to talk about this guy? Are you people bored?

Bolton: this is our moment Mr president! We can strike turkey and show Russia we are the true power.

Trump: No, that's dumb.

Bolton: Hey Bob I have some real concerns Donald is in their pockets.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Starting to think this book doesn't make Trump look good and Bolton might not get invited to Mar e Lago for tea.

---

Why would you reply to my posts about wagering if Trump is still POTUS in 3 weeks?

I'll give you 50:1 odds on $100. You win 5k if you're right.

They are worried.

houag80 said:

---

Don't feed the ignorant ******* trolls! Simply flag and move on.

---

Won't do any good.

Some people are allowed to troll endlessly.

And even if they get banned, they just switch to a new sock.

GMaster0 said:

---

They are worried.

---

You only come here when you think you can post "we got him!" crap.

You clearly haven't read the thread unless you're only reading Gary's posts.

aginlakeway said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Starting to think this book doesn't make Trump look good and Bolton might not get invited to Mar e Lago for tea.

---

Why would you reply to my posts about wagering if Trump is still POTUS in 3 weeks?

I'll give you 50:1 odds on $100. You win 5k if you're right.

---

You're conversing with a poster who posts lies, spin and nonsense. He also creates sock accounts to bolster his self esteem.

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ubitag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.

---

What specific due process was denied Trump?

---

Donald Trump has still not been able to provide or cross examine witnesses, or face his accusers.


The trial has not been completed, but the impeachment itself completely lacked due process.

---

That's what the trial is for.

If due process is denied whenever a potential defendant doesn't get to face or cross examine witnesses during the investigation, does that mean that we have to clear out the jails and the prisons?

Trump did have the opportunity to be represented in front of the House judicial committee but he turned them down. That's on him, not the House.

---

You are not watching the process, u would know the first 71 days Trump was not allowed due process, only the last 7 days he was offered a limited process, stripped of executive privileged.

The next Democrat President will impeached with a Republican house, and by your rules the senate will do the leg work.

---

Define due process.

How was Trump denied due process during the first 71 days? Precisely which due process rights were denied.

How were his due process rights denied when he decided not to show up at or be represented at the judiciary committee hearings?

Define executive privilege.

How was he stripped of his executive privileges?

---

This better lays it out.

How can he cross examine or call fact witnesses if he was only given access to the pathetic "constitutional" discussion attempted by nadler

---

Is it really an issue of due process if the defendant is denied the opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses or to call witnesses prior to the start of a trial?

Quote:

---

Why would you reply to my posts about wagering if Trump is still POTUS in 3 weeks?

I'll give you 50:1 odds on $100. You win 5k if you're right.

---

I like those odds. I'm not that confident in 67+ votes I'm pretty confident now of 50+ votes and Republicans getting shamed in campaigns now that it's been proven he's comically guilty.

I'm also skeptical of an internet stranger paying out $5K on faith. No offense

Guilty of what Gary?

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Quote:

---

Why would you reply to my posts about wagering if Trump is still POTUS in 3 weeks?

I'll give you 50:1 odds on $100. You win 5k if you're right.

---

I like those odds. I'm not that confident in 67+ votes I'm pretty confident now of 50+ votes and Republicans getting shamed in campaigns now that it's been proven he's comically guilty.

I'm also skeptical of an internet stranger paying out $5K on faith. No offense

---

Comical

GMaster0 said:

---

They are worried.

---

Ok Mr. concerned moderate