Rudy: not only would I testify, I would love to try the case as well

[Care4all]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

 

[Care4all]

What is the whistleblower going to tell you that is not in his written complaint that has been independently investigated?

Demanding the whistleblower be exposed is just harassment

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

Nope!

If Obama committed Trump`s high crimes, your side would have impeached him in a nano second, and hung him from the highest tree!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

The whistle blower reported what he was hearing. The IG investigated the claim and found it to be true.

What possible value is whistle blowers testimony other than to harass future whistle blowers?

 

[rightwinger]

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

 

[bendog]

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

The whistle blower reported what he was hearing. The IG investigated the claim and found it to be true.

What possible value is whistle blowers testimony other than to harass future whistle blowers?

It's harassment, I agree. But in a way, with the Trump apologists in Wash claiming "the process is wrong," laying out a step by step story of how Trump's shakedown came to light might not be all bad.

 

[Care4all]

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said he would be willing to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if asked and would "love to try the case" if given the opportunity.

"I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures. I'd give summations," Giuliani said Tuesday night when asked about the possibility during a New Year's Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

"Or, I'd do what I do best: I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case," he said. "I don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but if you give me the case, I will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which I kind of invented anyway."

The former prosecutor said it had been 30 years since he tried such a case, "but let's see if I can still do it."

Trump impeachment: Rudy Giuliani willing to testify in Senate trial

Sounds like a pretty confident guy. Is he bluffing? Is he calling ass on Piglosi to go ahead and send the articles to the Senate and see what happens?

Without a doubt, nobody would let Rudy try the case, but his statement suggests he would be working very closely with Trump's defense. In light of Hunter's problems involving the paternity suit, criminal investigations of money laundering that include Burisma, and his tax lien,it certainly is looking like team Trump may have something on the Biden's.

He has every bit of information against the dems in Ukraine. ALL OF IT. And it’s extremely damning. The dems are done whether Rudy tries the case or not.

The GOVERNMENT has to have probable cause to investigate Biden's and a Judge has to approve....And the presidents impeachment trial

IS NOT ABOUT THE BIDEN'S or anything they did....And YOU can NOT go after them in TRUMPs impeachment trial, impeachment is NOT a criminal trial, it would be unconstitutional.

If the Biden's committed all f these crimes that you falsely claim, then the DOJ goes after them, giving them their constitutional rights, they will be prosecuted in a court of law, with their own defense team of lawyers to defend them.


YOU KNOW THAT...

Biden's can't help Trump get out of the charges against him, unless he has witnesses and evidence for his own defense.... accusing someone else of a different crime in his own impeachment is not a defense for his own crimes.

It's completely lawless and another abuse of govt power.

You have absolutely no clue how the legal process works in this country, which is something that seems common among the left. When you’re accused of a crime you have the absolute right to face your accuser and provide whatever evidence you need to defend your position. If that means calling Biden to testify, so be it. Dems say trump investigated Biden for nothing more than to damage his reputation politically. Trump says he did it to investigate corruption. If trump can prove corruption then the case is closed. How else does the defendant prove their case other than subpoenaing witnesses and evidence?

How is it possible that you people are this clueless to the process of justice in this country?

Nope! You have no clue.

A WB is simply the anonymous tipster that called in and reported that he saw a bunch of guns in his neighbor's garage, and his neighbor is an ex felon still on parole. The cops or detectives sent, determine if the tipster's tip is accurate.

The defendant does NOT GET TO CALL THE ANONYMOUS TIPSTER in his trial to face him.

You have the right to face your accuser if the accuser is claiming the defendant committed a crime against the accuser.

Trump is not being accused by the WB of committing a crime against her or him.

If a woman claims she was raped by the defendant, the defendant would get to have his lawyers put her on the witness stand because she is claiming he raped her....

Bidens and WB are not claiming Trump committed crimes against them.


End of story

 

[colfax_m]

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

 

[Paulie]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

 

[Paulie]

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said he would be willing to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if asked and would "love to try the case" if given the opportunity.

"I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures. I'd give summations," Giuliani said Tuesday night when asked about the possibility during a New Year's Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

"Or, I'd do what I do best: I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case," he said. "I don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but if you give me the case, I will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which I kind of invented anyway."

The former prosecutor said it had been 30 years since he tried such a case, "but let's see if I can still do it."

Trump impeachment: Rudy Giuliani willing to testify in Senate trial

Sounds like a pretty confident guy. Is he bluffing? Is he calling ass on Piglosi to go ahead and send the articles to the Senate and see what happens?

Without a doubt, nobody would let Rudy try the case, but his statement suggests he would be working very closely with Trump's defense. In light of Hunter's problems involving the paternity suit, criminal investigations of money laundering that include Burisma, and his tax lien,it certainly is looking like team Trump may have something on the Biden's.

He has every bit of information against the dems in Ukraine. ALL OF IT. And it’s extremely damning. The dems are done whether Rudy tries the case or not.

The GOVERNMENT has to have probable cause to investigate Biden's and a Judge has to approve....And the presidents impeachment trial

IS NOT ABOUT THE BIDEN'S or anything they did....And YOU can NOT go after them in TRUMPs impeachment trial, impeachment is NOT a criminal trial, it would be unconstitutional.

If the Biden's committed all f these crimes that you falsely claim, then the DOJ goes after them, giving them their constitutional rights, they will be prosecuted in a court of law, with their own defense team of lawyers to defend them.


YOU KNOW THAT...

Biden's can't help Trump get out of the charges against him, unless he has witnesses and evidence for his own defense.... accusing someone else of a different crime in his own impeachment is not a defense for his own crimes.

It's completely lawless and another abuse of govt power.

You have absolutely no clue how the legal process works in this country, which is something that seems common among the left. When you’re accused of a crime you have the absolute right to face your accuser and provide whatever evidence you need to defend your position. If that means calling Biden to testify, so be it. Dems say trump investigated Biden for nothing more than to damage his reputation politically. Trump says he did it to investigate corruption. If trump can prove corruption then the case is closed. How else does the defendant prove their case other than subpoenaing witnesses and evidence?

How is it possible that you people are this clueless to the process of justice in this country?

Nope! You have no clue.

A WB is simply the anonymous tipster that called in and reported that he saw a bunch of guns in his neighbor's garage, and his neighbor is an ex felon still on parole. The cops or detectives sent, determine if the tipster's tip is accurate.

The defendant does NOT GET TO CALL THE ANONYMOUS TIPSTER in his trial to face him.

You have the right to face your accuser if the accuser is claiming the defendant committed a crime against the accuser.

Trump is not being accused by the WB of committing a crime against her or him.

If a woman claims she was raped by the defendant, the defendant would get to have his lawyers put her on the witness stand because she is claiming he raped her....

Bidens and WB are not claiming Trump committed crimes against them.


End of story

You’re the only one talking about a whistleblower here. I never once mentioned the WB. I don’t even care about the whistle blower because he’s pointless to trumps defense.

You people are unhinged lunatics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

 

[The Original Tree]

Day one in The Senate, this picture should be up on the "stage" so to speak, blown up to immense proportions.

Evelyn Farkas in Burisma Gear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

Nope!

If Obama committed Trump`s high crimes, your side would have impeached him in a nano second, and hung him from the highest tree!!!!!

Did DumBama withhold documents that Congress requested, yes or no?
Did Biden give Ukraine a quid pro quo, yes or no?

Did Trump get impeached for not giving Congress what they asked for, yes or no?
Did Trump get impeached over a quid pro quo on Zelensky, yes or no?

 

[colfax_m]

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

 

[colfax_m]

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

Biden did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine as part of an overall foreign policy with that country to encourage them to reform and overcome their corruption. He did it for the benefit of US foreign policy, not an individual personal benefit as did Trump.

Obama did assert executive privilege with Congress after having handed over thousands upon thousands of documents and having witnesses testify dozens of times in the congressional probe. Trump has blocked any and all requests and subpoenas from the House, which is a huge difference.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

In fact, Trump did exactly that

It was Trump who tied military aid directly to receiving personal favors
There is no denying it

 

[rightwinger]

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

There is nothing illegal about a quid pro quo
It is illegal to use US aid in return for personal favors
Favors that help you get elected

 

[Care4all]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

Paulie,

it is not the president's job to do such, with his personal campaign lawyer Giuliani and two goons that were charged with money laundering $350,000 from Russians in to a Trump campaign PAC, illegaly. Whatever they gather as info, likely would not be able to be used in a court of law..

it is the DOJ's and FBI's job to do this, following the constitution of protecting American citizen's rights, while investigating, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S....

and no matter what is found, it has no bearing on Trump, BREAKING the Law.... his high crimes accusations....

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS WAS FOR PERSONAL GAIN....

THE only way Velensky could get the military aid and his coveted DC. Whitehouse meeting, was to make an announcement that the Ukraine prosecutors were reopening a case involving the Bidens....

NOW YOU HONESTLY TELL ME,

what was the goal and purpose of this being necessary, for the money/meeting?

Amb. Sondland testified that Velensky actually did not have to do the investigation, he just had to announce it on CNN....

CAN YOU explain that....?