Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Too bad the impeachment fiasco is near ended. I hope his speech only leaves Schiff with 5 minutes or less on his allowed speaking moments. Because he isn't in charge any more. He's now officially at the mercy of those he showed no mercy to, and he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?
The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.
Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.
Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!
Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.
More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.
Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,
I don't know. Obama did the exact same thing as Trump, and that was withhold documents the Republican Congress subpoenaed. It took a couple of years before a final judgement was made.
You are confused. Obama refused to turn over documents and Holder was found in contempt. That's an incredibly huge difference.
The courts still had to decide that Obama was not protected by executive order. That's not to say they might have rushed it through a little faster since we're talking about impeachment. But what makes this whole thing suspicious is why they felt they needed it rushed through as fast as they did, and then stalled for a couple of weeks before forwarding it to the Senate.
Uh, I don't know what you are basing that on,but that did NOT happen. Executive privilege simply did not apply in this case.
Shifty was talking about Russia Invasion today. He's a nut case.
Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.
Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.
The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.
So please post the evidence that the Congress sanctioned Biden's threat of withholding it. And no, Trump only stopped the money for two weeks. Quid pro quo's do not need congressional approval.
Would you accept something right off the Senate.gov site? You keep lying out your ass and then we factcheck you and call you on your lies. It's like you have a room full of monkeys with keyboards that type your responses. And those Monkeys are all liars to boot.
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
Here is the actual letter from Congress.
Dear President Poroshenko,
As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.
During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.
We recognize that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies. Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.
Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.
We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.
It goes even deeper than that. There were numerous phone calls and letters to have them fire the prosecutor due to corruption. Biden just drove home the point that everyone in the Free World was wanting. And unless that action and others weren't done, not one single dime was going to be authorized by the US Congress. Biden drove home the point and put a 6 hour time limit on it. And they complied in full inside of those 6 hours. Did Biden personally have the authority to tie those funds up? No. But he was representing the US Congress at the time as well as the President. The funds have already been suspended by Congress.
There you have it. So stop lying. I know your Orange Deity lies 1/3rd of the time when he speaks but that doesn't mean you have to.
So what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? The only mention of Shokin was about reform, not demanding his termination. And how many judges did Biden get fired as well? I'm willing to bet zero.
The letter was leading up to just that. There were many phone calls about it. Biden just put it very straight forward. You want the money, you fire him. And he had the backing of the Congress and the President. No, Biden didn't have the power to withhold the funds but Congress did and the loan backing was not approved. BTW, it isn't Foreign Aid, it's loan guarentees. Like co-signing. Ukraine couldn't get a loan to save their own life Literally) without the US co-signing for the loan. At the time, Ukraine was on the Congress Corrupt List and Congress openly demanded they take steps to ease the corruption of no loan.
Nice try at a "Gotcha". Now, stop trying to do a "Hey, Look Over There". Stay focused. This impeachment is about Rump and his merry band of Criminals and no one else.
History will judge the impeachment trial
It has already judged Clinton’s impeachment as partisan excess
It will view the Trump impeachment as a partisan cover up
Like all government agencies, the OBM is infested with swamp creatures, so no one is surprised at their decision.The OMB has absolutely no authority over the President. They have an opinion, that's all.The Dems had to get their shots in early. Then when they reintroduce the same articles, what then, is Moscow Mitch going to table them again? It really doesn't matter when it happens. And the opening arguments were already done. You are just preaching to the Rumpsters, not the rest of us. We already know where MM gets his marching orders from and the rest of the Reps just follow the leader blindly. As it stands now, at least 2 Republican Senators are toast. Gardner didn't have a poor name. But he does now. He was warned. He was reelected on an Anti Rump stance but now that he's facing tough competition he's thrown in with Rump as a last ditch effort to try and save his job. But the Rump Card ran out in 2018.
When are the Reps going to stop blindly following the Orange Deity.
Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.
Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.
The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.
There you go lying again!
I suggest you ask the OMB that same question. They seem to believe Rump broke the law withholding those funds. At first, they adhered to the demands of Rump but it appears they finally just had enough.
Yep, whenever I investigate any of Daryl's claims, they turn out to be colossal lies. He's as bad as Adolph Schiffler.Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?
The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.
Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.
Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!
Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.
Why do you constantly lie, thinking no one can see through that thick smear of bullshit your posts are covered in?
"... Trump endorsed 75 House and Senate candidates, of whom 42 or 55 percent won."
Trump endorsed 75 candidates in the midterms. How did they fare on Election Day?
Now, let's see you man up and admit you have no clue as to what you are talking about for once in your pathetic, miserable existence. You are the perfect example of a dumbass libtard, making shit up as you go along to fit your demented reality that no one else can see.
I will bet you don't have the balls and will just leave the thread, you miserable waste of oxygen.
Like all government agencies, the OBM is infested with swamp creatures, so no one is surprised at their decision.The OMB has absolutely no authority over the President. They have an opinion, that's all.Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.
Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.
The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.
There you go lying again!
I suggest you ask the OMB that same question. They seem to believe Rump broke the law withholding those funds. At first, they adhered to the demands of Rump but it appears they finally just had enough.
If you think there should be additional witnesses, then this entire process is wrong. There are no new witnesses in a Jury review. It wasn't done during Clinton. What I'd really like to know is why you think the house was fair when it disallowed witnesses from the President. You know, your statement:Republicans didn't call any witnesses, you fucking dumbass.And it wasn't that way during the commie hearings?
The Democrats had their turn, now it's our turn. They passed a phony impeachment, now we are going to vote that's exactly what it is, bogus. And.....no witnesses allowed. Democrats had all their witnesses during their clown show. Clown show over. Let's get this shut down so we can try to move on with our lives.
Let's take a good look at things. 1/3rd of all witnesses were called by the Republicans. The problem was, when they testified and told the truth it sounded like they were on the other side. Well, the other side was the side of justice. I can't help it that Rump is guilty as sin and that's the prime reason the Boot Lickers don't want to allow ANY Witnesses to be called because their own Witnesses have a tendency to sink their battleship.
You're totally out of touch with reality.
Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
so you don't like our economy? fking hilarious fkr. Best economy since forever. and you think it sucks. wow. dishonest as a day is long I see.The Republicans in the majority can call any witness they want? My . . . . how big of you to allow that. Once again, I have to point out to you that this isn't a real trial. The time for testimony and witnesses was in the House.Republicans didn't call any witnesses, you fucking dumbass.
You're totally out of touch with reality.
Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
Holding Trump "to answer" is not what the inquiry is for, you retarded moron. If the Dims didn't make their case, that's a crying shame. They had their chance. If the evidence from the Inquiry is sufficient to convict him, then why do you need more evidence?
Apologists for the House impeachment douchebags can't post a thing on this subject without shooting themselves in the dick.
so you post material that backs the president's stance. Too fking funny.That's totally for the uniformed voters who won't vote for Trump anyway. Those of us who understand what's going on realize the Republicans wanted to have opening arguments first, and then decide if witnesses were needed. The Democrats insisted it go the opposite way, because they knew the Republicans would vote against doing it backwards. It's a show.
Show me one criminal trial where witnesses were called to testify before opening arguments.
The Dems had to get their shots in early. Then when they reintroduce the same articles, what then, is Moscow Mitch going to table them again? It really doesn't matter when it happens. And the opening arguments were already done. You are just preaching to the Rumpsters, not the rest of us. We already know where MM gets his marching orders from and the rest of the Reps just follow the leader blindly. As it stands now, at least 2 Republican Senators are toast. Gardner didn't have a poor name. But he does now. He was warned. He was reelected on an Anti Rump stance but now that he's facing tough competition he's thrown in with Rump as a last ditch effort to try and save his job. But the Rump Card ran out in 2018.
When are the Reps going to stop blindly following the Orange Deity.
Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.
Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.
The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.
So please post the evidence that the Congress sanctioned Biden's threat of withholding it. And no, Trump only stopped the money for two weeks. Quid pro quo's do not need congressional approval.
Would you accept something right off the Senate.gov site? You keep lying out your ass and then we factcheck you and call you on your lies. It's like you have a room full of monkeys with keyboards that type your responses. And those Monkeys are all liars to boot.
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
Here is the actual letter from Congress.
Dear President Poroshenko,
As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.
During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.
We recognize that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies. Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.
Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.
We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.
It goes even deeper than that. There were numerous phone calls and letters to have them fire the prosecutor due to corruption. Biden just drove home the point that everyone in the Free World was wanting. And unless that action and others weren't done, not one single dime was going to be authorized by the US Congress. Biden drove home the point and put a 6 hour time limit on it. And they complied in full inside of those 6 hours. Did Biden personally have the authority to tie those funds up? No. But he was representing the US Congress at the time as well as the President. The funds have already been suspended by Congress.
There you have it. So stop lying. I know your Orange Deity lies 1/3rd of the time when he speaks but that doesn't mean you have to.
what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?Republicans didn't call any witnesses, you fucking dumbass.Let's take a good look at things. 1/3rd of all witnesses were called by the Republicans. The problem was, when they testified and told the truth it sounded like they were on the other side. Well, the other side was the side of justice. I can't help it that Rump is guilty as sin and that's the prime reason the Boot Lickers don't want to allow ANY Witnesses to be called because their own Witnesses have a tendency to sink their battleship.
You're totally out of touch with reality.
Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
huh? you okay?The Republicans in the majority can call any witness they want? My . . . . how big of you to allow that. Once again, I have to point out to you that this isn't a real trial. The time for testimony and witnesses was in the House.Republicans didn't call any witnesses, you fucking dumbass.
You're totally out of touch with reality.
Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
Holding Trump "to answer" is not what the inquiry is for, you retarded moron. If the Dims didn't make their case, that's a crying shame. They had their chance. If the evidence from the Inquiry is sufficient to convict him, then why do you need more evidence?
Apologists for the House impeachment douchebags can't post a thing on this subject without shooting themselves in the dick.
The fewest senate impeachment trials (and it's a trial) was under Clinton and that was 3. Then again, everyone knew he was guilty and he made no bones (pun) about it after the hearing started. It was down and dirty and fast. Even so, they still called 3 witnesses. The highest number was the impeachment of a Judge at over 200. At no impeachmennt EVER been done without added witnesses that weren't called during the house impeachment. On the average, 1/3rd of all witnesses called by the senate were new witnesses.
You keep trying to justify Rump Justice rather than the US Constitution, Traditions and Customs that have already been established. And you ignore the past court rulings. This reminds me of another time and place in 1930 in Italy. The sad part is, you can't see the dangers involved. The scary part is, we are only a handful of Congress People and a couple of Judges to reach exactly where Mussolini was in 1936 and how did that work out. When it reaches a certain point, the first thing that gets done is to remove term limits on the President. Then ...........
Everything has to have limits. Rump doesn't have any limits. You are free riding us right out of the Republic and into Mussolini Fascism. Read up on the rise of Mussolini. You will find that you are groomed to be a brown shirt. In Mussolini's day, it was black shirts.
Sondland wasn't called by the Republicans, moron. That's another lie I caught you in.And it wasn't that way during the commie hearings?
The Democrats had their turn, now it's our turn. They passed a phony impeachment, now we are going to vote that's exactly what it is, bogus. And.....no witnesses allowed. Democrats had all their witnesses during their clown show. Clown show over. Let's get this shut down so we can try to move on with our lives.
Let's take a good look at things. 1/3rd of all witnesses were called by the Republicans. The problem was, when they testified and told the truth it sounded like they were on the other side. Well, the other side was the side of justice. I can't help it that Rump is guilty as sin and that's the prime reason the Boot Lickers don't want to allow ANY Witnesses to be called because their own Witnesses have a tendency to sink their battleship.
Every witness outside of Sondland stated what they knew were assumptions, conclusion, or personal opinion. The only witness that actually spoke to Trump stated that Trump ordered him of no quid pro quo. That being a fact, the commies still impeached him with no actual witnesses to support their case.
Outside of Sondland. That means Sondland was dead on. And he more than implicated Rump and his merry band of Criminals. And to think, he was a witness called by the Republicans. 1 out of 3 of all witnesses were called by the Republicans. So much for not allowing the Republicans to call witnesses. It's just that Rump was so guilty it just LOOKED like the Democrats called them all.
nope, you are incorrect. stupid fk for a $1000You said the Republicans called him. Now you're saying he's a Republican. You wouldn't have to backtrack so much if you didn't lie constantly.Sondland wasn't called by the Republicans, moron. That's another lie I caught you in.Every witness outside of Sondland stated what they knew were assumptions, conclusion, or personal opinion. The only witness that actually spoke to Trump stated that Trump ordered him of no quid pro quo. That being a fact, the commies still impeached him with no actual witnesses to support their case.
Outside of Sondland. That means Sondland was dead on. And he more than implicated Rump and his merry band of Criminals. And to think, he was a witness called by the Republicans. 1 out of 3 of all witnesses were called by the Republicans. So much for not allowing the Republicans to call witnesses. It's just that Rump was so guilty it just LOOKED like the Democrats called them all.
Oh, stop this nonsense. He's one of the Reps. Just because he pretty well sunk his boss doesn't change anything. He's a million dollar Rumpster.
I didn't backtrack one step. You are trying to do a "Gotcha" to back up your lie. Sorry, won't work over here. You lied and got bagged for it. No Gotchas or "Hey, Look over There" allowed.
what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?Republicans didn't call any witnesses, you fucking dumbass.
You're totally out of touch with reality.
Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
dude, they had every fking opportunity to call witnesses. PERIOD! They voted and therefore forfeited any further witness being presented. WTF is wrong with all you fkers out there? Please, I must be the only fk in the country saying this. They voted, they exhausted their witnesses prior to the vote. Isn't that the purpose of the vote? Please all you intellectual idiots out there, please show me how I'm wrong. No more witnesses! hey stupid fk GOP senators, fking back my constitution, you get no witnesses. you juror off the presented arguments and that's all. So shut the fk up!what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?Of course they did not call any witnesses, Republicans fear speaking out when under oath. Image Sen. Graham on the witness stand in 2020 and then being exposed as the hypocrite he is:
Lindsey Graham said you must have impeachment trial witnesses... in 1999
they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
It's all a stage show. They know they have nothing. But their only goal here is to try to make Republicans look bad. So they bitched about having opening arguments first, and to vote on the witness amendments instead. The Democrats knew the Republicans would never go for this. That's why they demanded it in the first place. As they expected, the Republicans did vote down the witnesses, and the MSM went crazy with this narrative that Trump is trying to hide something.
As far as ShoeMaker, here is what he said about witnesses during the Clinton impeachment.
Trump DID provide witnesses and evidence: Democrats just don’t remember - Liberty Unyielding
dude, they had every fking opportunity to call witnesses. PERIOD! They voted and therefore forfeited any further witness being presented. WTF is wrong with all you fkers out there? Please, I must be the only fk in the country saying this. They voted, they exhausted their witnesses prior to the vote. Isn't that the purpose of the vote? Please all you intellectual idiots out there, please show me how I'm wrong. No more witnesses! hey stupid fk GOP senators, fking back my constitution, you get no witnesses. you juror off the presented arguments and that's all. So shut the fk up!what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?they didn't though. you know that correct? tell me you know that or you are just
Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
It's all a stage show. They know they have nothing. But their only goal here is to try to make Republicans look bad. So they bitched about having opening arguments first, and to vote on the witness amendments instead. The Democrats knew the Republicans would never go for this. That's why they demanded it in the first place. As they expected, the Republicans did vote down the witnesses, and the MSM went crazy with this narrative that Trump is trying to hide something.
As far as ShoeMaker, here is what he said about witnesses during the Clinton impeachment.
Trump DID provide witnesses and evidence: Democrats just don’t remember - Liberty Unyielding
I’m smarter than them though. I wasn’t born yesterday, the day before maybedude, they had every fking opportunity to call witnesses. PERIOD! They voted and therefore forfeited any further witness being presented. WTF is wrong with all you fkers out there? Please, I must be the only fk in the country saying this. They voted, they exhausted their witnesses prior to the vote. Isn't that the purpose of the vote? Please all you intellectual idiots out there, please show me how I'm wrong. No more witnesses! hey stupid fk GOP senators, fking back my constitution, you get no witnesses. you juror off the presented arguments and that's all. So shut the fk up!what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?Yes, I am just. I've argued that the R's can call any relevant witness they want to testify, as long as the D's have the same ability. The R's can subpoena relevant documents, and the D's can too. Every court room and trial follows this script as part of America's Jurisprudence.
Keep in mind the R's had every opportunity to cross examine every witness in both of the Committee Hearings. Keep in mind the hearings were not a trial, they were in essence a preliminary hearing, no finding of guilt was or could have been established.
The only finding was that the testimonies and documents presented were sufficient and necessary to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump to answer. And now, the Defendant is away from the nation, and Sen. McConnell has created a trial sure to acquit the Defendant; notwithstanding the copious amount of evidence produced in the hearings, and everyday sense, incriminating The President.
The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
It's all a stage show. They know they have nothing. But their only goal here is to try to make Republicans look bad. So they bitched about having opening arguments first, and to vote on the witness amendments instead. The Democrats knew the Republicans would never go for this. That's why they demanded it in the first place. As they expected, the Republicans did vote down the witnesses, and the MSM went crazy with this narrative that Trump is trying to hide something.
As far as ShoeMaker, here is what he said about witnesses during the Clinton impeachment.
Trump DID provide witnesses and evidence: Democrats just don’t remember - Liberty Unyielding
It was all part of the screen act. They didn't call their witnesses so they could save it for the Senate, and again, try to make Republicans look bad by them refusing to hear their witnesses. But of course, the MSM will never explain it that way. You have to turn on real news like Fox.
I’m smarter than them though. I wasn’t born yesterday, the day before maybedude, they had every fking opportunity to call witnesses. PERIOD! They voted and therefore forfeited any further witness being presented. WTF is wrong with all you fkers out there? Please, I must be the only fk in the country saying this. They voted, they exhausted their witnesses prior to the vote. Isn't that the purpose of the vote? Please all you intellectual idiots out there, please show me how I'm wrong. No more witnesses! hey stupid fk GOP senators, fking back my constitution, you get no witnesses. you juror off the presented arguments and that's all. So shut the fk up!what I don't understand is if they are so convinced they got him, why do they need more witnesses? And, how is it Juror Schumer can comment on the schitt's speech yesterday? How is he being impartial with his comments? come on all you commie fking leftists, answer me some questions. you all sitting holding your dicks?The trial was presented in the inquiry. The witnesses testified at the inquiry. The Senate is for a decision making process--not to extend the Democrat clown show.
It's all a stage show. They know they have nothing. But their only goal here is to try to make Republicans look bad. So they bitched about having opening arguments first, and to vote on the witness amendments instead. The Democrats knew the Republicans would never go for this. That's why they demanded it in the first place. As they expected, the Republicans did vote down the witnesses, and the MSM went crazy with this narrative that Trump is trying to hide something.
As far as ShoeMaker, here is what he said about witnesses during the Clinton impeachment.
Trump DID provide witnesses and evidence: Democrats just don’t remember - Liberty Unyielding
It was all part of the screen act. They didn't call their witnesses so they could save it for the Senate, and again, try to make Republicans look bad by them refusing to hear their witnesses. But of course, the MSM will never explain it that way. You have to turn on real news like Fox.
