Mueller just dumped on Trump , clear as mud

[SteelChip]

That's what this whole circus is about...Pure and simple.

Yeah...and don't believe for a minute that the Democrats across the country are all pleased with this clown show they have for leadership.

 

[IndySteel]

What crime would Trump's taxes show?
.

Probably that he made $3.8 billion one year instead of the rumored $5.1 billion. The horror! Rage! Riot! Go apeshit!

 

[Spike]

hahahahahaha


Trump rams Mueller down their throats!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

The Greatest Presidential Harassment in history. After spending $40,000,000 over two dark years, with unlimited access, people, resources and cooperation, highly conflicted Robert Mueller would have brought charges, if he had ANYTHING, but there were no charges to bring!

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....

....say he fought back against this phony crime that didn’t exist, this horrendous false accusation, and he shouldn’t fight back, he should just sit back and take it. Could this be Obstruction? No, Mueller didn’t find Obstruction either. Presidential Harassment!

 

[Iron95]

That's reasonable. In fact it sounds like Trump would be estatic to go through with it. He can once again make fools of the Dems & prove his witch hunt accusation was on point the entire time. A public hearing on the Mueller report, down to every detail, including a review of the evidence and witness testimonies. More scrutiny for Trump, his campaign, the contacts made with Russians, the materials confiscated, financial records, et al.

Televised, public impeachment hearings would make great reality tv. Huge ratings boost for the President.

Trump must be chomping at the bit in excitement, daydreaming about it. A detailed, methodical and public hearing on the President's actions and behavior broadcast on live TV.? Let's do it! A time for Trump to shine and bounce off the walls. Defeats Hillary in a landslide election, kicks Pelosi to the curb, knocks out lightweights Comey & Mueller and leaves the soppy Dems in Congress in his wake. He's crowned lifetime King of Conservatives. End of story.

Surely this is how it's playing out in Stephen Miller's head, or whoever his advisors are these days. Ivanka? Jared? Giuliani?

To get ahead of the curve, first thing I'd advise Trump to do is release his tax returns, just to clear the air on that. He has nothing to hide, would be an excellent tactic to build public trust and credibility. Since Trump clams to be the most transparent President in history - his words, not mine - bring it out in the open, release your returns like every damn President has since the Stone Age.

How about you post your tax returns on this site, for..........."transparency"

 

[IndySteel]

This perfectly sums up POS Mueller.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/robert_mueller_is_a_sleazy_shameful_partisan_hack.html

Robert Mueller is a Sleazy, Shameful, Partisan Hack

 

[Spike]

35 out of 237, about 14% of Dems in the House want to impeach?

(never even mentioned by the FAKE NEWS NETWORKS)

It was fun while it lasted those 10 hours. “Sigh” Tibs wipes a tear away.

relax, theFAKE NEWS NETWORKS will now work even harder to save their dying ratings


Thursday, Trump tweeted that he had "nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected." But he walked back that statement while speaking to reporters, saying "Russia did not help me get elected.""I helped me get elected," Trump said. "Russia had nothing to do with it at all.”

 

[Spike]

BAM!


Pelosi swats away impeachment -- again

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, brushing off new comments by Robert Mueller and 2020 Democratic hopefuls, feels as strongly as ever that impeaching President Trump would be a "fool’s errand"

Why it matters: Pelosi remains defiant, despite growing calls from fellow Democrats to plunge quickly into impeachment.

Ironically, Pelosi is leading the charge against impeachment while GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan is leading the charge for it.

By the numbers: Politico says the whip count in favor of impeachment is 41 House members (42 if you include Amash), representing "fewer than 20% of House Democrats, and less than 10% of the House."

https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-...ent-fa067c6c-a04d-40d6-8825-c159969c51af.html

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

This perfectly sums up POS Mueller.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/robert_mueller_is_a_sleazy_shameful_partisan_hack.html

Robert Mueller is a Sleazy, Shameful, Partisan Hack

Mueller is a sleaze, plain and simple. Tibs calls him honorable, but hell, Tibs calls Michael Avenatti an American Patriot. Tibs probably couldn't tell the difference between a nickel and a howitzer if both were sitting in front of his face though so that doesn't say much.

My fave part of the article:

True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not. We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges. But they did not.

So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President. Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report. There were others present when he said this to Barr.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...azy_shameful_partisan_hack.html#ixzz5pQ2j60vT
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[deljzc]

Huh? What Pelosi and the House Dems end up doing is their prerogative. It's on them, let the chips fall where they may, either way. It's their Constitutional duty and responsibility to hold the President accountable, who knows if they're brave enough to do so. In my view the Mueller report contains a myriad of impeachable offenses, regardless how Trump, Barr and many on this board feel about it. Again, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Call it leftist hysteria all you want, that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

And for the record, to me the most impeachable offense is not obstruction of justice. It's dereliction of duty to not only not call out - and stand up to - Russia's covert and illicit actions, but to hardily laugh aloud and pat Putin on the back as Russian State espionage and hacking activity took place against Americans and the American electoral process. All for the benefit of Trump. That is abiding with the enemy, and is every which way wrong. Evidence of conspiracy and collusion with Russia would have risen to treason. This is a notch below, but still breaks the trust of the nation to serve and protect national interests, and betrays his oath to office.

And cut the bullshit this was under Obama's watch. Everyone knows full well McConnell stonewalled all things Russia from the get-go, which has continued to this day. From the moment he stepped into office, it was Trump's job and duty to assess what happened with the elections and give an honest reckoning to the American people. He not only failed to do so, he's continued to question, shade and cover-up Russian involvement ever since.

If this were to be happening with a Dem president I 100% guarantee most everyone on this board would have called for impeachment two friggin' years ago, well before Mueller wrapped up the investigation.

I'm calling it leftist hysteria.

Nothing in that report is high crimes and misdemeanors. And certainly not a crime that would get bipartisan support.

There is the phrase "HIGH" in there for a reason otherwise it becomes a political side show of one party against another. If the crime isn't severe enough to get your own party to turn on you, then it's just not a "High" crime and misdemeanor. Period. Why even act like you know better? Why even say bullshit that doesn't stick or hold water?

First you said Russia collusion, but that crime doesn't exist. Now you say "obstruction", which is so open-ended and "legaleze" way of trying to pin a crime on someone it's obvious. How can you obstruct nothing? The outrage (and your outrage) is hysterical. It's the only explanation. It defines making a mountain out of a molehill. It defines partisanship accusations because the attacks are PARTISAN. Only democrats are doing it. That tells you all you need to know.

If there really was some "Constitutional Crisis". If Trump is changing the balance of power between congress and the executive branch (and you would be hard pressed to prove to me Trump's executive branch is more powerful than Obama's or did more things against the rights of Americans), then Congress WOULD do something. Both Democrats and Republicans. But they aren't.

The people don't want it. The representatives don't want it. The crime doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, either in "legaleze" or in court of public opinion. You are wrong.

 

[Superman]

How about you post your tax returns on this site, for..........."transparency"

Tibs contributes to the site, so I have no issue with him.
Flogomanbun, however... let's see if he's as destitute as he IMPLIES by not chipping in, but posting multiple times per day.

 

[IndySteel]

BAM!


Pelosi swats away impeachment -- again

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, brushing off new comments by Robert Mueller and 2020 Democratic hopefuls, feels as strongly as ever that impeaching President Trump would be a "fool’s errand"

Why it matters: Pelosi remains defiant, despite growing calls from fellow Democrats to plunge quickly into impeachment.

Ironically, Pelosi is leading the charge against impeachment while GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan is leading the charge for it.

By the numbers: Politico says the whip count in favor of impeachment is 41 House members (42 if you include Amash), representing "fewer than 20% of House Democrats, and less than 10% of the House."

https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-...ent-fa067c6c-a04d-40d6-8825-c159969c51af.html

Poor Tibs. *sniffle*

 

[Troglodyte]

A defense attorney doesn't have to establish attempted implications. He can simply point out that two unrelated things that happened at the same time are evidence of exactly nothing.

The investigation wasn’t only of Trump and his administration, it was also about Russia. So those two things were related and are evidence of the same thing.

 

[Superman]

The investigation wasn’t only of Trump and his administration, it was also about Russia. So those two things were related and are evidence of the same thing.

how can you say that and turn a blind eye to the proven, time and time again, strong relations between Russia, the Clinton Empire and the Obamas?

 

[Spike]

Congress: "Mr Mueller how is your Russian Uranium stock doing today"


*crickets*

 

[Troglodyte]

how can you say that and turn a blind eye to the proven, time and time again, strong relations between Russia, the Clinton Empire and the Obamas?

The Clintons and Obama were totally exonerated and there was no evidence of wrongdoing, or at least there was insufficient evidence, or... **** it, the people investigating them had an agenda and were conflicted, goddamn it!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The Clintons and Obama were totally exonerated and there was no evidence of wrongdoing, or at least there was insufficient evidence, or... **** it, the people investigating them had an agenda and were conflicted, goddamn it!

Totally exonerated by whom?

There was AMPLE evidence of wrong doing.

 

[deljzc]

The Clintons and Obama were totally exonerated and there was no evidence of wrongdoing, or at least there was insufficient evidence, or... **** it, the people investigating them had an agenda and were conflicted, goddamn it!

Are you saying the people investigating Trump didn't have an agenda and were conflicted? Did you read the ******* text messages by Peter Storzk?

 

[JMM]

I wonder if a report generated by a similar special investigation headed up by all Republicans would be received with such enthusiasm by the left leaning contingency.

They should have had a mix of personnel from the start to give it at least some bipartisanship if they were indeed looking to find answers. As was stated previously most folks who have a subjective view of politics can see this whole thing was an effort to degrade Trump's legitimacy and stall his ability to get his agenda off the ground.

The swamp continues on but it has taken a hit under his administration and many who are paying attention and again can see things as they are have taken notice to how bad things are in DC and how our politicians need to be reigned in across the board. They definitely command too much power and attention.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I wonder if a report generated by a similar special investigation headed up by all Republicans would be received with such enthusiasm by the left leaning contingency.

They should have had a mix of personnel from the start to give it at least some bipartisanship if they were indeed looking to find answers. As was stated previously most folks who have a subjective view of politics can see this whole thing was an effort to degrade Trump's legitimacy and stall his ability to get his agenda off the ground.

The swamp continues on but it has taken a hit under his administration and many who are paying attention and again can see things as they are have taken notice to how bad things are in DC and how our politicians need to be reigned in across the board. They definitely command too much power and attention.

Alas, they did not. Besides Mueller, a registered Republican, but one who has established, nefarious ties to the Clintons, Comey et al, see the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.58d22c5b2129

Below is the complete list of the special counsel team members, their donations and the party affiliation noted in their past or present voter registration records.

1) Brian M. Richardson, a former Supreme Court clerk and clerk for a judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

2) Ryan Dickey, a lawyer on detail from the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

3) Kyle Freeny, a lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.

Freeny donated $250 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, another $250 to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012 and $250 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

4) Scott Meisler, an appellate lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

5) Zainab Ahmad, a lawyer from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

6) Greg Andres, a former partner at Davis Polk, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department Criminal Division and a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York

He donated $2,700 to the campaign of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) this year and $1,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of David Hoffman (D) in 2009 when he ran unsuccessfully in Illinois.

Voter registration: Democrat.

7) Rush Atkinson, a lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division Fraud Section.

He donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Voter registration: Democrat.

8) Michael Dreeben, an appellate lawyer from the Office of the Solicitor General.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

9) Andrew Goldstein, a lawyer from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

Goldstein donated $3,300 to Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Voter registration: Democrat.

10) Adam Jed, an appellate lawyer from the Civil Division.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

11) Elizabeth Prelogar, an appellate lawyer on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General.

She donated $250 each to Clinton’s campaign in 2016 and the Obama Victory Fund in 2012.

Voter registration: Democrat.

12) James Quarles, a former partner at WilmerHale and a former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

He donated more than $30,000 to various Democratic campaigns in 2016, including $2,700 to Clinton, although his giving spans two decades. Quarles also gave $2,500 in 2015 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and $250 to Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2005.

Voter registration: Democrat.

13) Jeannie Rhee, a former partner at WilmerHale who has served in the Office of Legal Counsel and as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington.

Rhee donated a total of $5,400 to Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and 2016, and a total of $4,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and 2011. She also made smaller donations totaling $1,750 to the Democratic National Committee and to various Democrats running for Senate seats.

Voter registration: Democrat.

14) Brandon Van Grack, a lawyer on detail from the Justice Department's National Security Division.

He donated $286.77 to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Voter registration: Democrat.

15) Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who headed the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. He has served as general counsel at the FBI and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Weissmann donated $2,300 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, $2,000 to the DNC in 2006 and $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007.

Voter registration: Democrat.

16) Aaron Zebley, a former partner at WilmerHale who has previously served with Mueller at the FBI and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

17) Aaron Zelinsky, a lawyer on detail from the U.S. attorney's office in the District of Maryland.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

-----------------------------------------

17 lawyers listed. 12 registered Democrats. 5 "unaffiliated." 0 Republicans. Each of them had their political donations analyzed. Of all 17 lawyers, their combined donations (all to Democratic officials and organizations) totaled $36,336.77. Not a donation made to Republicans.

Yeah, this was an objective special counsel.

 

[Troglodyte]

Are you saying the people investigating Trump didn't have an agenda and were conflicted? Did you read the ******* text messages by Peter Storzk?

You seriously didn’t recognize the progression of Trump’s narrative regarding the Mueller report when you read it?

 

[Superman]

The Clintons and Obama were totally exonerated and there was no evidence of wrongdoing, or at least there was insufficient evidence, or... **** it, the people investigating them had an agenda and were conflicted, goddamn it!

just as Tom ******* Brady was 100% exonerated and cleared of any wrongdoing involving footballs?
just as OJ ******* Simpson was 100% found not guilty of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?
is that what you're comparing this to? because it fits better than you imagine.

 

[Superman]

You seriously didn’t recognize the progression of Trump’s narrative regarding the Mueller report when you read it?

you seriously don't recognize a fishing expedition when you see one?

 

[Tibs]

Damn these unhinged Obama-loving lefty libtard commie ******** gobbling down media-driven fake news bullshit are driving me nuts with this impeachment talk.

Former GOP Rep. Tom Coleman: Trump, Pence are illegitimate. Impeach them
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article230713224.html

According to the redacted Mueller report, candidate Donald Trump, along with members of his team, on multiple occasions welcomed Russian interference on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. For example, the report details a meeting between the Trump campaign chairman and a Russian intelligence asset where polling information and campaign strategy were shared.

While Mueller did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign had violated a criminal statute, the net effect was that the Trump campaign encouraged a foreign adversary to use and misrepresent stolen information on social media platforms to defraud U.S. voters. Because the presidency was won in this way, the president’s election victory brought forth nothing less than an illegitimate presidency.

Mueller presents a strong case that in addition to receiving campaign help from Russian operatives, the president obstructed justice — a crime in itself. Mueller declined to charge the sitting president because of current Department of Justice regulations that prohibit it. That policy is wrong in my opinion, and must be changed in the future when reason and rationality return to our politics.

What should be done now? There are some Democratic members in the House majority who want to put off any discussion of impeachment until after the 2020 election. They believe it will only strengthen the hand of the president, who will claim he is a victim and will respond with his mantra of, “No collusion, no obstruction, case closed.” Other Democratic members of Congress want impeachment proceedings to begin.

The political calculus not to pursue impeachment is understandable. Current polls show a majority of voters do not favor it. But critical times require exceptional leadership. Lawmakers of both parties should not blindly follow the polls but instead follow the evidence and their conscience. Politics should not rule the day. Partisan politics is what got us to this dangerous place — so dangerous, I believe, that the survival of our democracy is at risk.

Contemplate the possible behavioral problems of a Trump untethered from the law and who is frequently untethered from reality. Would we be surprised if he were to repeatedly brandish his get out of jail card while breaking, at will, democratic norms, presidential precedents and criminal statutes? Trump said early in his campaign that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Are we now at that point?

Because DOJ regulations put a president above the law while in office, I believe the only viable option available is for the House of Representatives, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, to open its own investigation, hold public hearings and then determine if they should pursue removal of the president through impeachment. There is a trove of evidence in the Mueller report indicating Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, including abuse of power and lying to the American public. Both were part of the articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon. This process would allow a full public review of wrongdoing, while providing Americans an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the consequences to our national security and the lingering threat to our democracy.

If this process leads to impeaching Trump in the House of Representatives and also results in convicting him in the Senate, his illegitimacy would survive through Vice President Mike Pence’s succession to the presidency. Because the misdeeds were conducted to assure the entire Trump-Pence ticket was elected, both former candidates — Pence as well as Trump — have been disgraced and discredited. To hand the presidency to an illegitimate vice president would be to approve and reward the wrongdoing while the lingering stench of corruption would trail any Pence administration, guaranteeing an untenable presidency. If Trump is impeached, then Pence should not be allowed to become president. The vice president should resign or be impeached as well if for no other reason that he has been the chief enabler for this illegitimate president.

Alternatively, the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment to the Constitution provides for the removal of a president. It sets forth a cumbersome procedure requiring the vice president to convince a majority of the Cabinet to recommend removal to Congress because the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. By a two-thirds vote, Congress could then end a presidency.
The removal of the president and replacement with the vice president would have the same result as if the president had been impeached. The vice president would succeed to the presidency.

In addition to these constitutional provisions, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 sets the order of officials who are in line to succeed a president, regardless of the reason. The first three officials listed are the vice president, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate. If the vice president were unable to ascend to the presidency for whatever reason — for example resignation or impeachment — then the speaker would become president. Today that individual is Rep. Nancy Pelosi. It is unknown whether she would agree to serve as president or that the majority of the House would want her to do so.

The Constitution does not require the speaker of the House actually to be a member of the House of Representatives. Under these circumstances, with the specter of a national crisis looming over the vacancy of the presidency and vice presidency simultaneously, consideration should be given by House members to draft a nationally-known individual for speaker who would appeal to the vast majority of Americans. That person, after being sworn in as speaker, would ascend to the highest office in the land. Under the provisions of the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment, the new president would nominate a vice president, who would take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both chambers of Congress.

What if House Democrats decide not to embark on impeachment? If that were the case, I believe the public would conclude Democrats are no better than the Republicans who have enabled Trump for the past two years, putting party above country. It could hand Trump a second term. Failure to pursue impeachment is to condone wrongdoing. To condone wrongdoing is to encourage more of it. To encourage wrongdoing is to give up on the rule of law and our democracy. To give up on the rule of law and democracy invites autocracy and eventually dictatorship. History has taught us this outcome. In my lifetime, it has occurred in other places including the Soviet Union and Germany, as well as in Russia and Venezuela today.

Tom Coleman is a former Republican U.S. representative from Missouri. He has served as an adjunct professor at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and at American University.

 

[Stewey]

Damn these unhinged Obama-loving lefty libtard commie ******** gobbling down media-driven fake news bullshit are driving me nuts with this impeachment talk.

Former GOP Rep. Tom Coleman: Trump, Pence are illegitimate. Impeach them
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article230713224.html

 

[Steeltime]

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, dereliction of duty, failing to uphold the Constitution and act in good faith, for the benefit of the American people. That would be the place to start.

Without raping your factually devoid claims for the fourth or fifth time: (1) No evidence to support a criminal referral, (2) not a crime, (3) not a crime, (4) not a crime.

This isn't a court case. This is a Congressional impeachment hearing, to ascertain wether the President acted in good faith and upheld his sworn duty to faithfully abide by and execute the laws of the land, to handle the office of President in an open and honest manner.

Aaaaaaand there you have it - the liberal cat is out of the leftist bag.

Lefties don't give a **** if Trump is guilty of any activity meriting impeachment, and incredibly have begun the orchestrated charade of claiming that impeachment does not require an underlying crime, is not a trial, and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, impeachment can be used as a purely political tool to remove a President who is too successful and buttfucking (D)ims.

Does a charge of impeachment require a crime? The recent spate of mainstream media reporting is "no," which is remarkably inconsistent with the views of these same shills in 1998 about Clinton's conduct. "Personal" behavior - even misuse of the office for personal sexual gain - is not impeachable because it is not criminal.

The much better-reasoned analysis is that the listing of conduct supporting impeachment in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires criminal conduct to support articles of impeachment.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, Tibs, you spout what makes you hard today - no matter that it will forever and completely **** our nation. If the House can impeach for whatever reason they want - your position - get ready to have your team ****** in the ***. Will it make the United States a banana republic? You and your ilk don't care.

If the President committed a crime - an impeachable offense - Mueller would have ******* SAID SO.

Is an impeachment a trial, with a burden of proof to the level of the criminal standard? Yes:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

The jury takes an oath, just as is the case in criminal trials. The Senate will conduct the trial - just as happens in criminal prosecutions.

So stop for one minute in destroying the Constitution, the political process, and the electoral system by supporting patently futile efforts to remove a duly-elected President, and spend some time thinking about what matters the next ten years, not the next ten seconds.