Scot free: Ex-FBI official McCabe won't face Justice Department charges

Sorry...no OJ was later in a jury trial, where his same conduct was on trial and he was fought to be liable for his actions...he was not fully exonerated...like Trump has been.

Some have been found....https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-election-but-attempts-to-minimize-its-effect

 

You are confusing the Senate trial on impeachment with a criminal trial. If they were the same, the presiding judge would make the call on introducing new evidence at trial. In this case, the presiding judge was Roberts, but without the power the Judiciary holds in a criminal trial. In the Senate trial, the presiding judge is more like a referee ensuring that the Senate's own rules for the trial are adhered to. So, in that sense, in an impeachment trial, the Senate sits as BOTH judge and jury. In a criminal trial, the presiding judge would have made the call on additional evidentiary witnesses and documentation at trial. Roberts announced that he did not feel it was appropriate for him to become involved in the Senate's "sole power to try impeachments" and would not vote on
the issue, even in case of a tie. [I think he was correct.] Procedurally, I have no complaint on the Senate vote NOT to allow additional evidence. I do, however, believe they violated their oaths to ensure a fair trial when they did so. The penalty for doing so is the judgement of the electorate in their next election.
Impeachment and trial on impeachment are not necessarily tied to the criminal code. Criminal crimes MAY BE tied to the impeachment charges, but do not necessarily have to be. It is a political process with - if convicted - a political penalty...removal from office and possible prohibition from holding future political offices.

 

“Fully exonerated.”

*LOFL*

 

A Judge in a criminal trial does not make the call or going out and collecting more evidence.....that's just silly. The Proseuctor does the investigation and presents their case at the trial. The Senate conducted a fair trial giving both sides the same amount of time to present their cases, and argue their cases. The problem is the Dems just didn't have the evidence to support a conviction, therefore the President was fully exonerated and the case is closed.

 

I know of no limitations, other than the time allotted, restricting the presentstion of any evidence.

What specific evidence were the House Managers prevented from entering?

 

Just the evidence they didn’t have! Haha which was a lot as it related to their case

 

Yes, and interestingly enough, witnesses in criminal trials aren't permitted to allow defendants to order witnesses from appearing at trial, and aren't permitted to refuse to provide evidence. You know what else? The jurors in criminal trials are excused if they come right out and state that they'll be "working hand in glove" to conspire to "acquit" the defendants.

Isn't that interesting?

 

Preposterously silly question.

Did you know that Bonespurs was in Davos boasting about the evidence that he hid from the House?

 

Huh? Are you trying to say something? Defendants in criminal trials certainly can call whatever witnesses they want or don’t want.

And no a witness doesn’t have to provide evidence, but one would assume if they are called the person calling the expects them to, one can assume that when witnesses aren’t called they aren’t gonna be good to the case. This is why and one can easily logically conclude why the dems refused to get Bolton

 

Oh they have the evidence and presented it. And, there was additional evidence to be presented at trial. A Republican majority in the Senate blocked the additional evidence from presentation. A political ending to a political process. This will be settled at the polls.

 

The testimony of John Bolton for one.

 

They apparently had more they never actually went to collect...and again I think we logically know why...it wasn’t gonna help.

Nothing really political about the trial, it was fair. Some of the House managers whining got some rebuke from the bench, and some of the dems, like Warren’s questions were highly poolrocal and not appropriate, but that’s expected

 

Even if John Bolton testified, President Trump was not going to be removed from office. His acquittal was all but guaranteed.

 

McCabe lied four times, three of those times were under oath. Why would he be charged with anything?

 

You keep ignoring Bolton's attorney's statement in his November 8th letter to the House General Counsel. The evidence is right there...we have a client with new evidence regarding the impeachment charges. In a "fair trial," the Senate would have voted to hear that evidence. So...the people will judge at the next election of those Senators who voted against the presentation of new evidence.

 

There was no Bolton testimony to present. What doesn't exist, can't be prevented.

Why didn't the Democrats call him, to their hearings, in order to find out if he had any evidence?

 

The senate trial was well after Nov 8. So nothing was new in the senate. The house should have gone after it..they decided not to. The only logic conclusion is it wasn’t important or them.

 

So you think if a person is arrested and charged with a crime, then acquitted in their trial the arrest always stays with that person?

 

Why wasn't he called to testify in the House?

 

I posted what I wanted, and quite clearly.

You don't seem to grasp what takes place in a civil trial, a criminal trial, or a (contrived and fixed) trial in the Senate.

In sharp contrast, not only do I know these things, but have decades of experience with the trial process. Albeit not in the Senate. You look silly misstating my posts; if you can contradict what I've posted, give it a go. Otherwise, save some bandwith if this is what you're going to do.

 

Fake News.

 

You don't know? Because the "presuhdint" obstructed Congress.

 

I’m not sure what you posted. I have quite the experience myself. The prosecutors failed to make their case...and that’s all that happened here. They got desperate and threw out a Hail Mary and tried to suggest the evidence they could have easily gotten if they wanted, was the key...but they didn’t get it...burden shifting is the go to for desperate prosecutors

 

Why?

 

Because he would not have testified without fighting a subpoena and the Democrats didn't want another 18 month court fight as they were experiencing with Don McGahn. The new evidence was "presented" by Bolton's attorney's letter...which stated Bolton had new evidence to present. Had the Senate voted to hear such, Bolton could have been deposed and Roberts along with the "managers" for the prosecution and defense could have reviewed his testimony and decided whether or not it was sufficiently relevant to present to the Senate jurors.