House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that acquittal won’t count if senators vote to clear President Trump without hearing from any witnesses.
“You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that,” the California Democrat said.
“Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so,” she added.
Senators will vote on Friday on whether or not to extend the trial and hear from additional witnesses.
New revelations reportedly contained in former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript linked the hold on military aid for Ukraine and the investigations directly to the president, sparking a wave of momentum for those in favor of hearing from more witnesses.
But it will still be an uphill battle for Democrats to chip off the four Republican votes they need to secure the next phase.
Some of the most likely Republicans to break ranks, like Sen. Mitt Romney, have signaled they’re interested in hearing from Mr. Bolton, but others, like Sen. Cory Gardner, are ready to move on.
Mrs. Pelosi would not say Thursday whether or not the House would call Mr. Bolton themselves if the Senate declines.
“I hope and I pray that the senators can handle the truth and will listen to not only other witnesses but John Bolton as well. And we’ll see what happens after that,” she said. “The fate of our nation is riding on how this is resolved.”
© Copyright (c) 2020 News World Communications, Inc.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
She surely is tense. Watch those teeth grind while speaking. She is in grave fear of losing the Speaker of the House. AND SHE WILL. . . She is a useful idiot for the socialists in the House.
What happened to that “ rock solid” case the house said they had in order to impeach the president? What’s the need for more witnesses if that’s the case? The dems all knew they didn’t have a real case so now they’re afraid of the outcome. What a bunch of jackasses. Makes you wonder about the voters that put them in office.
GR, the pattern you will see is that most of these complete moron democrats are in poor districts, that are full of people that don’t care about voting – probably have never voted in their lives – and ripe for fraud. And don’t forget all the dead people that vote. In 2008 I read one district in PA had more votes for Obama that people that LIVED in the district, not just registered. Gee, how can that be. Of course the story got buried and you never heard it again. And then you have the ones like AOC who was placed there by some rich globalist. You can’t convince me she’s smart enough to have done it by herself.
Plus out in Ca, there were reports of SEVERAL voting districts where over 100% of the registered vote went for hillary.. THAT WOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN anywhere..
Then we had here in ohio, reports of a FULL ON CONEX BOX of ballots that got found.. BUT within less than 2 days, that story SOON GOT BURIED..
Did anybody remind… or just plane inform Numb Skull Nancy that you can’t have trial without a crime!
She doesn’t care.. NONE of the corruptocrats do.
It’s amusing to listen to the dems lecture Americans on their definitions of “acquittal”, “trial” and especially “fact” …
The dem “Freak Parade” begins with a litany of definitions, followed by conclusions drawn from the delusional definitions …
If you accept their definitions, the conclusions seem logical.
And, if you accept their definitions, you are a moron.
These people just keep getting deeper into insanity every time they open their mouth. Time for the idiots that voted them in to just not vote anymore!!
“useful idiot” is putting is very mildly.
What happens if Occasional Cortex becomes Speaker????
That’s an interesting question that made me think. Since the Speaker is 3rd in line for the presidency and AOC is only 30, I think we’re safe for at least 5 years. However, that’s assuming the Dems follow the Constitution, which is open for debate.
Courts all the time, TOSS OUT cases, for lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute. HOW is this any different..
Unfortunately judges have the power to make “findings of fact” that cannot be disputed. So if a judge makes a finding of fact that water runs up hill in a case, that “fact” cannot be disputed. (remember, judges were once LAWYERS!)
If she keeps that up she will be swallowing the bits and pieces and we can hope she has already started this and if she doesn’t have another set, think what she will look like on Tuesday! This farce is ended any way you look at it. Schiffy Schiff just doesn’t have the skill to have come prepared and then wanted to do more? Glad that the vote said NO witnesses which the democrat communists must be happy as if they got Bolton, the Trump side would have gotten the Bidens, Schiffy Schiff, Nadler and maybe Pelosi and Schumer. So a lot of interesting acting will be missed for us but time to close the doors and lock them in closing the stuff today!
The lunatic left will not accept the outcome of this partisan political impeachment any more than the they accepted Mueller’s investigation outcome of the mythical Russia collusion……or for that matter the 2016 election itself.
And that’s really what this whole thing is about. Democrats need to pay the ultimate price for their behavior over the past 3 years–the democrat party needs to become extinct.
AMEN CAP…
I’d almost go so far to say, SO TOO should the nimwits who keep electing them to office..
I think the old lady is desperate. And her “trial” comments make no sense. She’s lost it….
The fate of our nation rest upon the removal of every democrat from any elected and non elected office in the entire nation.
Nancy,
You should not have prosecuted if you did not have a case.
The prosecutors, in this situation, the House of Representatives, are responsible to build the facts and details of the accusation, including interviewing witnesses. The members of the jury, in this case, the Senators, are responsible to review the facts presented by the prosecutors and the defense, and decide the fate of the defendant.
It is not the job of the Senate to build the case.
Worse yet, Pooplosi’s “facts” are…well…opinions, feelings, TDS, etc. – all of which are not accepted in any impartial proceeding that bothers to follow rules of evidence.
We all witnessed the level of witch hunting the #metoo movement has degraded into with the best example being the Kavanaugh hearings.
This particular “impeachment” is simply an extension of the libtard disease that pushes the if “we don’t like you therefore you must be destroyed” mantra.
IMO she felt Just like with obamacare “WE have to impeach him, to find out what crime he committed”..
>> “The fate of our nation is riding on how this is resolved.” <<
Well, then, Nancy, why didn't you call those witnesses when the House had the chance to do so?
You're exactly right, invertedpendulum. The House builds the case, the Senate tries it. Since when do jurors get to call witnesses?
They don’t. HELL its even rare in real court rooms, jurors get the power to ASK questions OF already called witnesses..
Pelosi likes to boast Trump is “impeached forever”… ;
I think history will most likely record her as the most subversive Speaker of the House–FOREVER….
We can HOPE so.. Right alongside a record “the first speaker to be found guilty of sedition”.
Nancy, in a long career of sophomoric utterances (“we’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it”), you’ve outdone yourself. You give a perfect example of how the Left hoodwinks its supporters (they, the sheeple). If a judge, on hearing the opening statements, sees that no crime has been committed, he can throw the case out of court and end the trial – that constitutes the acquittal.
BTW, Nance, you also can’t be acquitted if you’ve never committed a crime or been charged with one. Nancy, go buy a copy of “Basket Weaving for Dummies” and retire to some nice, quiet place where you can enjoy your remaining years. You’ve done enough damage to our country.
She cannot return to her home … smells like poop!
Has she ever gone home??
Nazi PeeLousy says that you can’t be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. A trial shouldn’t matter to her and her Communist cronies since they have decided that Trump is guilty of something before this whole taxpayer funded fiasco got started.
Just like the wanted with Kavenaugh… Guilty, by accusation, no trial needed.
All 330 million citizens are fact witnesses to the unconstitutional & criminal perversion of law & justice & denial of basic rights that the Dem Party & deep state operatives has & will continue to resort to, not only to eliminate Pres Trump, but to gain political power by which they can impose tyranny over all of us.
There have already been 17 witnesses in the impeach trial who are basically a wash since, yes, they have testified to their dislike of Pres Trump & his policies but they also testified that much as they wished otherwise, they did not witness or have evidence of any wrongdoing at all, much less impeachable offense, committed by Pres Trump.
We are all witness to the transcript & public statements by Trump & Ukraine Govt that actually are direct proof / evidence of no wrongdoing.
It is unethical, malfeasant & signifies a malicious baseless prosecution to have more people who dislike Trump trotted out merely to claim Trump told them he “may” have wanted to do something that the actual evidence proves he did not actually do.
So, Nancy, we are all witness to the fact that, much like the 2016 election, the Dem Party will never accept acquittal no matter how many witnesses testify to knowing nothing at all except they don’t like Trump or his policies.
Earth to Nancy Numb Skull… I guess you forgot everything that’s been going on because of the unauthorized Poland trip at tax payers expense… just because you … THINK… you have a say in what goes on in the Senate… does …NOT… make it so. This country really has to lose this Queen imbecile!… NOW!!!
She’s from California, voters here are too dumb, and lazy, to kick her skinny a-s out.
And people wonder, why i wouldn’t shed a single tear, if half of CA just up and got swallowed by the Pacific, after the big one strikes..
Another off the cuff comment on a subject she has no expertise to utter:
“A not-guilty verdict isn’t the only way for an acquittal to come about. Trial judges and appeals courts can, for example, effectively acquit defendants by finding that there was insufficient evidence of guilt. While there’s no way for the prosecution to appeal a verdict of not guilty, there is sometimes an opportunity to appeal a court’s judgment of acquittal.”
She has no law training, was never schooled in law. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science (oxymoron?). “With a Bachelor of Arts, you will gain broad knowledge of the political science discipline, and your studies will emphasize communication skills and the humanities.” She is apparently trained to talk, not necessarily about anything she has any expertise in. She has long ago outlived her usefulness in her current position and needs to be retired, the sooner the better.
You’d think with the # of these cretins, who supposedly ARE lawyers, they’d know that..
A dismissal is better than being acquitted in a trial. The dismissal means that there is not enough evidence to take it to trial. A dismissal would show just how stupid the Dems are, because they brought the articles of impeachment to the Senate with no evidence of any crime. It would also imply that the Senate will not hear a baseless attempt to impeach a president. It would put egg on the face of Piglosi, Shiffhead, Nasty Nadler, and the others involved in the charade. We can only hope that the House of Reprehensibles, and the Senate have Republican majorities in the fall election, and these idiots are removed. If they are not removed, they should be impeached, and tried for sedition, and/or treason, because no one is above the law.
True.
See my other reply in this thread.
Dismissal would come WELL before Pooplosi’s so called “acquittal.” This concept is law 101.
But hey, libtards have reverted to ignoring facts and only chasing their feelings so there deplorable conduct is not a surprise.
A dismissal, indicates nothing was proven. An acquittal shows he’s not guilty. Either way, neither show the person was innocent.. LEGALLY at least.
ACQUIT:
to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty: They acquitted him of the crime. The jury acquitted her, but I still think she’s guilty. to release or discharge (a person) from an obligation. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.).
past tense: acquitted; past participle: acquitted
1. free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
Similar: absolve – clear – exonerate – exculpate – declare innocent – find innocent – pronounce not guilty – discharge – release – liberate – emancipate – free – set free – deliver – spare – exempt – dismiss – vindicate – let someone off (the hook)
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy.
The TRIAL began when YOUR MANAGERS started to present their case with what is called OPENING STATEMENTS of / for the TRIAL! Happens all the time.
Wow, seriously …. want to play word games or what? IF and there is, NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE the person is ACQUITTED and all charges are dropped. Sometimes, cases do not go to FULL TRIAL, because they do NOT make it through the openings of the TRIAL.
So yes, YOU and YOUR MANAGERS brought charges … and at this part of the TRIAL, it did NOT pass the grade. Maybe you should stop playing word games, take the LOSE and move on, instead of shooting yourselves in the foot even more.
Can’t have acquittal without a trial? Well, you can’t have a trial without a case to try. That means criminal allegations. Which there are none.
Try again.
In legalese, they have NO valid “cause of action”.
Feelings of hate aren’t recognized by an impartial court in the real world as a proper filing. What demonRATS presented is frivolous, therefore it shall be dismissed.
The DemonRats should just Go Away….Permanently
I fully agree.
Am watching all Dems on c-span parroting the same threats, slander & angry “to the death” refusal to ever accept an acquittal verdict just like they don’t accept the 2016 election or will ever accept the wishes & demands of the great majority of American people who dare interfere with their goal of political tyranny.
The majority of Dem Senators should be disqualified from impeach trial based on their publicly expressed mindless vicious hatred of Trump & everyone who supports him & his policies.
A trial in which jurors have publicly called the defendant a nasty vindictive racist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe & the most dangerous man in America who deserves no rights or defense is obviously not a legitimate trial but a malign public persecution.
There are NO witnesses or documents that can change / disprove the indisputable fact of the transcript & public statements from Ukraine Govt that Trump did not require or pressure Biden investigation for aid funds.
Won’t matter if a thousand people are brought forth who don’t like Trump or his policies to claim that he told them he wanted to condition Ukraine aid to Biden investigation since the whole world knows for a fact that such a thing did not actually take place.
I say if they wanna make it to the death, fine. LETS GIVE THEM THEIR WISH. Duel at dawn!
Nan, PLEASE tell us where to find THAT jewel in ANY American law! I’m sure lawyers and judges all across the country would be very interested.
Leave it to the left to:
-Make up their own rules as they go along
-Imagine reasons to justify a fake impeachment (They have tried (as in introduce articles of impeachment) to TRY to impeach EVERY ELECTED Republican POTUS since Eisenhower (See link here) be sure to read it carefully- because i used the word “Elected” which means Gerald Ford was not elected, and had taken over for Nixon after he resigned)
-They cannot win unless they:
*Cheat
*Change the rules
*Keep moving the goalposts
*Etc.!
-Dems need to go away, as they are out of touch and are so hungry for our cash and power, and some folks are too blind to this fact- they just keep drinking the Dem Kool Aid!
You forgot
* Even if they willfully break the rules, KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cause no one in charge, has the BALLS to prosecute them.
In the extremely rushed, tightly manipulated, and highly partisan attempt to cobble together a case for impeaching President Trump, the House Democrats’ farcical impeachment hearings have produced unbelievably vague articles of impeachment that have provided the Senate with a poorly defined and constitutionally unsupportable case to consider. Therefore, in response to Speaker Pelosi’s claim that President Trump cannot be acquitted without a trial, I believe the Senate cannot reasonably be expected to produce enough votes to convict the president based upon the shoddy articles of impeachment that the House Democrats dumped into the Senators’ laps.
Please, people, you need to understand the crux of the issue here. Pelosi had to act on impeachment, it was clearly an act of desperation. Think back, when Barr was appointed nerves were stressed, you can see the effect in the Dems faces as well as their words. When Biden shot off his mouth about extorting the Ukraine tensions became more evident. When the President made it clear that he was going to investigate corruption in the Ukraine it all hit the fan. Pelosi immediately announced the impeachment, not out of hate but out of fear, panic even. You can see the panic as she announced the impeachment hearings and never slowed or faltered even when provided the transcript of the call. Any normal minded person would have backed off at that point but not one consumed with panic. Panic in learning that the President fully intended to keep his promise of draining the swamp and investigating corruption, of which many in the house are involved. Pelosi’s own son is employed by Viscoil, a Ukraine energy company, sound familiar? Not to mention the fact that they need the HRC crimes to die so Obama is protected. Yes, he received and sent email to the HRC server, he knew, it had to be White Listed to get through. This is not about hate for Tump, it is panic about going to jail. The louder, the more complicate!
Nitwit Nancy is lying again. The House investigates, collects evidence and votes on whether or not to impeach. The Senate tries the case. Just what does she think the Senate is doing if not conducting a trial? DUH!
If the senate has to call new witnesses then that makes the impeachment invalid because there was not enough evidence to impeach. So far I have not seen an impeachable offence. Nancy keeps saying that the democrats are the only ones above the law. Nancy you are so ignorant.
And that’s the crux of the matter. IF THE SENATE needs to get more witnesses, it means the HOUSE didn’t do its job properly.
…so says Nancy “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” Pooplosi who supported oBOZO’s claim that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.
HYPOCRITES!
Well maybe the house should have found the documents and witnesses when they were so busy blocking all the witnesses in the House oh and maybe found some documents that actually proved anything but in their biased and one sided impeachment rush they did not have a solid bit of proof or witnesses so shut up and kiss Americas a**
Pelosi is very wrong.
There was an UNFAIR trial in the House where all defense witnesses and defense attorneys were barred, and false accusations were hurled, and lies were told by the Democrats. The resulting case was, at best, very weak.
There was a FAIR trial in the Senate where both sides were given long periods of time to bolster their case. Additionally, the Democrats continually made false accusations and told more lies.
The pathetically weak case from the Democrats virtually guarantees a full exoneration of Trump.