Why didn't House Democrats follow normal protocol to call impeachment witnesses?

[jc456]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

The impeachment inquiry was an investigation to see if there was evidence to move to formal impeachment.

Why would they open formal impeachment proceedings before knowing the circumstances of the president's actions and whether impeachment was even warranted?

Oversight and supoena authority still exist in the absence of formal impeachment proceedings.

well wait, didn't the prosecutors bring sworn testimony from 13 witnesses to the floor? The Trump side had no witnesses. didn't need them. what's so unusual about that at a trial? you're truly messed in the head confused dude.

Wha?

what went over your head stu?

 

[Ken Mac]

Democrats have to prove that Trump asking Zelensky to look into corruption was solely for Trump's own benefit.

In the call the only things he mention to Zelensky by name was the Biden and the DNC Server/Crowdstrike nonsense. Maybe he was speaking some kind of code or something, like Don Corleone, but he never said to investigate corruption generally, but specifically mentioned those two. Furthermore, the specifics of the statements required by Trump had to include references to the Bidens.

So if uncovering corruption that so happened to involve Biden or his son in this case somehow helped Trump, that would still be incidental.

Coincidentally, one of the two items specifically brought up by Trump on the perfect call?

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now? And the real benefit of uncovering corruption by Biden IF there was any,... would be to the people who voted for Biden.
Why do you only believe uncovering corruption only benefits Trump?... and here lies the problem for Democrats. They are simply making up motive by Trump as they go along.If you ask me, Trump had no incentive to "DIG UP DIRT" on Biden. Trump has him beat hands down in an election without any help. Democrats also know their platform is so weak that impeachment is the only way they can beat him. Information on Biden is not needed. If we are going to assume motive (WHICH IS WHAT THE DEMS ARE DOING), then i am going to assume Trump's motive in his perhaps clumsy way was only to bring transparency now that there was a new President in Ukraine.

The fact that Democrats wanted to Impeach Trump... people like Nadler... from the very beginning of his Administration reeks of partisanship and corruption to me, and it's just not something I can forget or get away from.

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now?

Derp....
LOL...
All you dopes believe it based soley on Trump's suggestion. You are all pushing that narrative and have even let Trump off the hook over it.
Biden continues to be smeared by it.

How does that not benefit Trump?

In what way is Biden being "smeared"? Did his son NOT take large sums of money from a Ukrainian company with a history of corruption for a job that he was in no way qualified for? Let's be honest here, Hutch...Joe Biden isn't some political neophyte who wouldn't understand how the game was played! He's been a politician his entire adult life! He can CLAIM that there was no quid pro quo in play but anyone with even a dollop of common sense knows that's a crock! Bottom line? Joe Biden should have told his son not to take the money because it's an obvious pay off. He didn't...which means Joe Biden OWNS that!

In what way is Biden being "smeared"?

Seriously?
Unfounded allegations of corruption aren't smears?

This isn't a smear?

As Joe Biden competes for a win in Iowa, one GOP senator is already talking about impeaching him

So Trump was relentlessly smeared by your logic. Nice. I'm glad we can agree on something.

 

[jc456]

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now? And the real benefit of uncovering corruption by Biden IF there was any,... would be to the people who voted for Biden.
Why do you only believe uncovering corruption only benefits Trump?... and here lies the problem for Democrats. They are simply making up motive by Trump as they go along.If you ask me, Trump had no incentive to "DIG UP DIRT" on Biden. Trump has him beat hands down in an election without any help. Democrats also know their platform is so weak that impeachment is the only way they can beat him. Information on Biden is not needed. If we are going to assume motive (WHICH IS WHAT THE DEMS ARE DOING), then i am going to assume Trump's motive in his perhaps clumsy way was only to bring transparency now that there was a new President in Ukraine.

The fact that Democrats wanted to Impeach Trump... people like Nadler... from the very beginning of his Administration reeks of partisanship and corruption to me, and it's just not something I can forget or get away from.

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now?

Derp....
LOL...
All you dopes believe it based soley on Trump's suggestion. You are all pushing that narrative and have even let Trump off the hook over it.
Biden continues to be smeared by it.

How does that not benefit Trump?

In what way is Biden being "smeared"? Did his son NOT take large sums of money from a Ukrainian company with a history of corruption for a job that he was in no way qualified for? Let's be honest here, Hutch...Joe Biden isn't some political neophyte who wouldn't understand how the game was played! He's been a politician his entire adult life! He can CLAIM that there was no quid pro quo in play but anyone with even a dollop of common sense knows that's a crock! Bottom line? Joe Biden should have told his son not to take the money because it's an obvious pay off. He didn't...which means Joe Biden OWNS that!

In what way is Biden being "smeared"?

Seriously?
Unfounded allegations of corruption aren't smears?

This isn't a smear?

As Joe Biden competes for a win in Iowa, one GOP senator is already talking about impeaching him

Unfounded? What's unfounded about what the Biden's were doing in the Ukraine? Did they NOT cash in on Joe Biden's position?

Yes unfounded. As in no evidence of corruption.
Present your evidence counselor.
Hunter Biden held a paid board position. That is not evidence of anything nefarious.

Yes unfounded. As in no evidence of corruption.

never investigated, so the book is open. let's go look! don't you want him exonerated?

BTW, plenty was found. no one checked out what was found. he's afraid of what is in that investigation. ewwwwwwww

 

[Oldstyle]

The Obama Administration skipped right past the announcement of an investigation...they went right to announcing that there was proof Trump was owned by the Russians! So which is worse...asking for an investigation...or using what you KNOW is a paid for political dirty trick...to smear your political opponent?

The Obama Administration skipped right past the announcement of an investigation...they went right to announcing that there was proof Trump was owned by the Russians! So which is worse...asking for an investigation...or using what you KNOW is a paid for political dirty trick...to smear your political opponent?

Nonsense.
The first public announcement confirming that Trump was under investigation came months after his inauguration.

Bullshit! The Obama Administration made sure that the narrative that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for...the Steele dossiers...were made public BEFORE the election! Claiming it came after the election is an outright lie!

Comey confirmed Trump was under investigation for the first time in Mar 2017.
The administration made no such announcements.

You're confusing reporting with announcements.

Did you want to claim that the Obama Administration wasn't working behind the scenes to help put out the narrative that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to have created? You seem to think that because they didn't make an official announcement that they weren't doing all they could to smear Trump.

Pure speculation.
You have no evidence that any of that is true, dope.

Other than testimony by Page, Strozk, Brennan and Clapper? There was a conspiracy at high levels of the Obama Administration to smear the candidate of the opposition party prior to the elections. Claiming it didn't happen is laughable on your part.

 

[WillowTree]

What you call "coercion" Boo is what EVERY President does when handing out foreign aid!

Yes they do. However, this is the first time a President tried to coerced a foreign nation into announcing investigations into his domestic political rivals with our foreign aid.

It's corruption. Trumpublicans apparently accept that type of corruption.

That's okay Democrats accept the corruption of lying about getting a blow job so........it's all equal, right?

I would view it as "corruption" if Trump had asked the Ukrainian President to make up something bad about Joe Biden that he could then use against him in a political race...you know...like the Democrats actually DID to Trump with the Steele dossiers? Trump didn't do that though...did he? He simply asked the Ukrainian President to investigate what the Biden's had been doing. He also asked the Ukrainian President to look into collusion between the Democrats and Ukrainians in that last Presidential election. Once again...he didn't ask them to make up something...Trump simply asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate. That's where the left's narrative of "corruption" simply falls on it's face! Since when is it corrupt to ask for an investigation into apparent corruption?

Allegations surrounding the Bidens are already "made up". Made up by Trump himself. He was simply trying to make it look more true, official and nefarious by having a foreign govt back his narrative.

Where are the investigations?

Be specific. What exactly is made up?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Allegations surrounding the Bidens are already "made up". Made up by Trump himself. He was simply trying to make it look more true, official and nefarious by having a foreign govt back his narrative.

Where are the investigations?

It's "made up" that Hunter Biden was being paid large sums of money for a job he had zero qualifications for other than being the son of the man who was in charge of the Ukraine for the US Government? With all due respect, Hutch...you don't have to make that look "nefarious" because it's rather obvious what Burisma was up to.

You're making accusations based on suppisition.
You still have yet to show corruption.

The corruption is obvious. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Your allegations are obvious. There actually is no evidence of corruption.

If it wasn't corrupt...then why did Hunter Biden give up the position once what was happening was exposed? What you claim now is laughable, Hutch! It's obvious that there was a pay off made by Burisma to buy favor with the Vice President of the United States.

The only thing that's obvious is your willingness to believe mere suggestions as fact. You're the exact dopey demographic Trump was hoping to co-opt into spreading his narrative.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nonsense.
The first public announcement confirming that Trump was under investigation came months after his inauguration.

Bullshit! The Obama Administration made sure that the narrative that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for...the Steele dossiers...were made public BEFORE the election! Claiming it came after the election is an outright lie!

Comey confirmed Trump was under investigation for the first time in Mar 2017.
The administration made no such announcements.

You're confusing reporting with announcements.

Did you want to claim that the Obama Administration wasn't working behind the scenes to help put out the narrative that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to have created? You seem to think that because they didn't make an official announcement that they weren't doing all they could to smear Trump.

Pure speculation.
You have no evidence that any of that is true, dope.

Other than testimony by Page, Strozk, Brennan and Clapper? There was a conspiracy at high levels of the Obama Administration to smear the candidate of the opposition party prior to the elections. Claiming it didn't happen is laughable on your part.

Sure......

 

[jc456]

It's "made up" that Hunter Biden was being paid large sums of money for a job he had zero qualifications for other than being the son of the man who was in charge of the Ukraine for the US Government? With all due respect, Hutch...you don't have to make that look "nefarious" because it's rather obvious what Burisma was up to.

You're making accusations based on suppisition.
You still have yet to show corruption.

The corruption is obvious. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Your allegations are obvious. There actually is no evidence of corruption.

If it wasn't corrupt...then why did Hunter Biden give up the position once what was happening was exposed? What you claim now is laughable, Hutch! It's obvious that there was a pay off made by Burisma to buy favor with the Vice President of the United States.

The only thing that's obvious is your willingness to believe mere suggestions as fact. You're the exact dopey demographic Trump was hoping to co-opt into spreading his narrative.

fact, the obammy administration thought Hunter's job was a conflict of interest, here,..

Opinion | Biden, Burisma and the Obama Administration

BTW, that's 100% more evidence than any Russia attachment with Trump. three years and still poop

 

[Oldstyle]

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now? And the real benefit of uncovering corruption by Biden IF there was any,... would be to the people who voted for Biden.
Why do you only believe uncovering corruption only benefits Trump?... and here lies the problem for Democrats. They are simply making up motive by Trump as they go along.If you ask me, Trump had no incentive to "DIG UP DIRT" on Biden. Trump has him beat hands down in an election without any help. Democrats also know their platform is so weak that impeachment is the only way they can beat him. Information on Biden is not needed. If we are going to assume motive (WHICH IS WHAT THE DEMS ARE DOING), then i am going to assume Trump's motive in his perhaps clumsy way was only to bring transparency now that there was a new President in Ukraine.

The fact that Democrats wanted to Impeach Trump... people like Nadler... from the very beginning of his Administration reeks of partisanship and corruption to me, and it's just not something I can forget or get away from.

Seems to me, if Biden did nothing wrong there would be no benefit to Trump would there now?

Derp....
LOL...
All you dopes believe it based soley on Trump's suggestion. You are all pushing that narrative and have even let Trump off the hook over it.
Biden continues to be smeared by it.

How does that not benefit Trump?

In what way is Biden being "smeared"? Did his son NOT take large sums of money from a Ukrainian company with a history of corruption for a job that he was in no way qualified for? Let's be honest here, Hutch...Joe Biden isn't some political neophyte who wouldn't understand how the game was played! He's been a politician his entire adult life! He can CLAIM that there was no quid pro quo in play but anyone with even a dollop of common sense knows that's a crock! Bottom line? Joe Biden should have told his son not to take the money because it's an obvious pay off. He didn't...which means Joe Biden OWNS that!

In what way is Biden being "smeared"?

Seriously?
Unfounded allegations of corruption aren't smears?

This isn't a smear?

As Joe Biden competes for a win in Iowa, one GOP senator is already talking about impeaching him

Unfounded? What's unfounded about what the Biden's were doing in the Ukraine? Did they NOT cash in on Joe Biden's position?

Yes unfounded. As in no evidence of corruption.
Present your evidence counselor.
Hunter Biden held a paid board position. That is not evidence of anything nefarious.

What's the first rule of investigating corruption, Hutch? Follow the money!!! The paid board position IS the evidence that something "nefarious" was taking place! Drug addict lawyers from one country that have no experience with energy companies whatsoever...don't get paid huge amounts of money to sit on a board of a company in another country! I'm sorry but that doesn't just "happen"!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What you call "coercion" Boo is what EVERY President does when handing out foreign aid!

Yes they do. However, this is the first time a President tried to coerced a foreign nation into announcing investigations into his domestic political rivals with our foreign aid.

It's corruption. Trumpublicans apparently accept that type of corruption.

That's okay Democrats accept the corruption of lying about getting a blow job so........it's all equal, right?

I would view it as "corruption" if Trump had asked the Ukrainian President to make up something bad about Joe Biden that he could then use against him in a political race...you know...like the Democrats actually DID to Trump with the Steele dossiers? Trump didn't do that though...did he? He simply asked the Ukrainian President to investigate what the Biden's had been doing. He also asked the Ukrainian President to look into collusion between the Democrats and Ukrainians in that last Presidential election. Once again...he didn't ask them to make up something...Trump simply asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate. That's where the left's narrative of "corruption" simply falls on it's face! Since when is it corrupt to ask for an investigation into apparent corruption?

Allegations surrounding the Bidens are already "made up". Made up by Trump himself. He was simply trying to make it look more true, official and nefarious by having a foreign govt back his narrative.

Where are the investigations?

Be specific. What exactly is made up?

The allegations of corruption. I was clear about that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're making accusations based on suppisition.
You still have yet to show corruption.

The corruption is obvious. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Your allegations are obvious. There actually is no evidence of corruption.

If it wasn't corrupt...then why did Hunter Biden give up the position once what was happening was exposed? What you claim now is laughable, Hutch! It's obvious that there was a pay off made by Burisma to buy favor with the Vice President of the United States.

The only thing that's obvious is your willingness to believe mere suggestions as fact. You're the exact dopey demographic Trump was hoping to co-opt into spreading his narrative.

fact, the obammy administration thought Hunter's job was a conflict of interest, here,..

Opinion | Biden, Burisma and the Obama Administration

Sure. Just not corruption, dope.

 

[Mac-7]

What you call "coercion" Boo is what EVERY President does when handing out foreign aid!

Yes they do. However, this is the first time a President tried to coerced a foreign nation into announcing investigations into his domestic political rivals with our foreign aid.

It's corruption. Trumpublicans apparently accept that type of corruption.

That's okay Democrats accept the corruption of lying about getting a blow job so........it's all equal, right?

I would view it as "corruption" if Trump had asked the Ukrainian President to make up something bad about Joe Biden that he could then use against him in a political race...you know...like the Democrats actually DID to Trump with the Steele dossiers? Trump didn't do that though...did he? He simply asked the Ukrainian President to investigate what the Biden's had been doing. He also asked the Ukrainian President to look into collusion between the Democrats and Ukrainians in that last Presidential election. Once again...he didn't ask them to make up something...Trump simply asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate. That's where the left's narrative of "corruption" simply falls on it's face! Since when is it corrupt to ask for an investigation into apparent corruption?

Allegations surrounding the Bidens are already "made up". Made up by Trump himself. He was simply trying to make it look more true, official and nefarious by having a foreign govt back his narrative.

Where are the investigations?

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/obama-administration-knew-hunter-biden-was-shady-witness-admits/

In Congressional testimony Friday, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch confirmed for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), that in 2016 the Obama State Department privately ran her through a series of practice questions and answers to prepare Yovanovitch for her Senate confirmation hearing.

Stefanik confirmed that one specific question Yovanovitch was asked to prepare for was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s being named to the board of Burisma?” Incredibly, Yovanovitch later testified that the State Department told her to deflect any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma by referring Senators’ questions to the vice president’s office.

This admission regarding her senate confirmation prep session was startling, and it flatly contradicted a prior statement Yovanovitch had made in the hearing: “Although I have met former vice president several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

Your point?

Where's the investigations?

I wonder if you have ever complained that the little guy gets punished while the rich and powerful do not?

I bet you have so you already know the answer to you question

 

[Oldstyle]

It's "made up" that Hunter Biden was being paid large sums of money for a job he had zero qualifications for other than being the son of the man who was in charge of the Ukraine for the US Government? With all due respect, Hutch...you don't have to make that look "nefarious" because it's rather obvious what Burisma was up to.

You're making accusations based on suppisition.
You still have yet to show corruption.

The corruption is obvious. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Your allegations are obvious. There actually is no evidence of corruption.

If it wasn't corrupt...then why did Hunter Biden give up the position once what was happening was exposed? What you claim now is laughable, Hutch! It's obvious that there was a pay off made by Burisma to buy favor with the Vice President of the United States.

The only thing that's obvious is your willingness to believe mere suggestions as fact. You're the exact dopey demographic Trump was hoping to co-opt into spreading his narrative.

So it's a "suggestion" of corruption to point out that Hunter Biden was getting paid what he did for a job he knew nothing about? Really, Hutch?

 

[jc456]

The corruption is obvious. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Your allegations are obvious. There actually is no evidence of corruption.

If it wasn't corrupt...then why did Hunter Biden give up the position once what was happening was exposed? What you claim now is laughable, Hutch! It's obvious that there was a pay off made by Burisma to buy favor with the Vice President of the United States.

The only thing that's obvious is your willingness to believe mere suggestions as fact. You're the exact dopey demographic Trump was hoping to co-opt into spreading his narrative.

fact, the obammy administration thought Hunter's job was a conflict of interest, here,..

Opinion | Biden, Burisma and the Obama Administration

Sure. Just not corruption, dope.

didn't read it, it says that the obammy legal advisers dropped the ball. that's corruption. not looking into it because he was a VP! that's corruption.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

The impeachment inquiry was an investigation to see if there was evidence to move to formal impeachment.

Why would they open formal impeachment proceedings before knowing the circumstances of the president's actions and whether impeachment was even warranted?

Oversight and supoena authority still exist in the absence of formal impeachment proceedings.

well wait, didn't the prosecutors bring sworn testimony from 13 witnesses to the floor? The Trump side had no witnesses. didn't need them. what's so unusual about that at a trial? you're truly messed in the head confused dude.

Wha?

what went over your head stu?

It made no sense. There was no itelligible point. Try again

 

[Nostra]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

The impeachment inquiry was an investigation to see if there was evidence to move to formal impeachment.

Why would they open formal impeachment proceedings before knowing the circumstances of the president's actions and whether impeachment was even warranted?

Oversight and supoena authority still exist in the absence of formal impeachment proceedings.

Nobody cares what your opinion in. Normal protocol when there is a dispute between the two branches is to go to court for a ruling.

The House Clowns didn't do that.

 

[Care4all]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

The impeachment inquiry was an investigation to see if there was evidence to move to formal impeachment.

Why would they open formal impeachment proceedings before knowing the circumstances of the president's actions and whether impeachment was even warranted?

Oversight and supoena authority still exist in the absence of formal impeachment proceedings.

Nobody cares what your opinion in. Normal protocol when there is a dispute between the two branches is to go to court for a ruling.

The House Clowns didn't do that.

the House followed ALL OF THEIR RULES.... you are spreading fake news, lies.

 

[Ame®icano]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

House subpoena for the Fast and Furious documents was issued in 2011. Barry asserted executive privilege and it went to court, that settled the case mid last year. Since House was taken over by Dems, the case was pushed under the rug. What important is that there was the procedure in place, and it was followed.

I have no clue why Dems didn't follow the procedure. IMO, they wanted to create the scandal and hope to somehow damage Trumps chances to be re-elected. They also tried to delegitimatize Senate for being "partisan", while ignoring their own partisanship. They rush to impeach without case against Trump, just to hold the Articles for more than a month before sending it to Senate. I suspect they used that pause to pressure Senate into changing rules that would be favorable to them and they used media as megaphone for their intentions.

 

[Ame®icano]

They issued a subpoena to Mulvaney, who refused to comply. Clearly, Executive Privilege could be used as the reason. But Trump's attorneys argue that the subpoena was invalid because the underlying reason for issuing it was the "impeachment inquiry", but the problem with that is Nazi Pelousy never held the required vote to implement an impeachment inquiry.

The reason for refusing to comply doesn't matter. Normal protocol when a subpoena is denied is to take it to the courts to get a ruling.

Why didn't Nazi and her House Clowns follow normal protocol? The withdrew the Muclvaney subpeona and did not go to court. Instead, they rushed a vote and are now over at the Senate begging jurors to conduct an investigation that was their responsibility.

Board Dimwingers refuse to acknowledge the responsibility for not having the witnesses they now claim is crucial to their "overwhelming" case is on the House Clowns. Not Trump. Not the Senate.

Once again, don't argue whether or not the reason for challenging the subpoena is valid. That's will get nothing done here. That's is now a question for the courts. Dimwingers refused to go to the courts.

So stop trying to blame Trump and the Senate for the failures of your House Clowns to do their job.

Because this is about more than Just President Trump. They are trying to reduce The Presidency to something akin to a Prime Minister beholden to a House of Lords.

It's not about Proof, or Truth, or even about Impeachment

But only while they're not holding the WH. We wouldn't hear from them if their guy is in there.

 

[Ame®icano]

They don't really want wittiness's they want the GOP to say no to them so they can call the senate corrupt....

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

Talking out of your ass again.

You don't go to court of law unless you have evidence that crime is committed to begin with. True, there may be new evidence, related or not to the crime, but regardless, that evidence need to be accepted by the court.

House Dems had all time to investigate and look for the evidence. They refused to follow procedure, it's not Senate's job to correct it for them.