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

[Hutch Starskey]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

Not liars necessarily. Just really bad lawyers who had no other defense of their client who is guilty six ways to sunday.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

No, they weren't, Moron.

Show us professor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's clear, dope. It was about the investigation that happened prior to the vote.
You then mentioned 13 witnesses that came after the vote. IOW irrelevant.

correct within that investigation. what is it you think they did with those 13 testimonies?

What is your point, dope?

Are you saying that evidence gathered in an investigation outside of an official impeachment proceeding cannot be used as evidence in an impeachment?

nope, you said that they didn't get to bring in witnesses. sure they did. with the articles.

WTF are you talking about?!
I said no such thing, dope.

Then what’s your issue?

Your abject retardation.

 

[jc456]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.t dope

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE

He must really turn your skin, and son I give a shit knowing that, and he’s still my president and yours. Fk you Hilarious

 

[jc456]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

Not liars necessarily. Just really bad lawyers who had no other defense of their client who is guilty six ways to sunday.

Well either they are right or not? Who are you to challenge them? That’s all

 

[jc456]

correct within that investigation. what is it you think they did with those 13 testimonies?

What is your point, dope?

Are you saying that evidence gathered in an investigation outside of an official impeachment proceeding cannot be used as evidence in an impeachment?

nope, you said that they didn't get to bring in witnesses. sure they did. with the articles.

WTF are you talking about?!
I said no such thing, dope.

Then what’s your issue?

Your abject retardation.

It stems from yours

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

 

[jc456]

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

Well the seven lawyers say differently, and son that buries your stupid ass

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

How do I not know? Because I'm not emotionally invested in believing everything the Democrats do is perfect, so long as it's in service of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I repeat, Trump had every right to challenge their subpoenas, and the appropriate place to argue it out was in front of a judge, like every other challenged subpoena that occurs in this country. It is NOT in the media to pander to a bunch of legally-challenged halfwits like you.

Use your own brain, idiot.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

Not liars necessarily. Just really bad lawyers who had no other defense of their client who is guilty six ways to sunday.

Well either they are right or not? Who are you to challenge them? That’s all

Someone smart enough to see their game.

 

[jc456]

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

Not liars necessarily. Just really bad lawyers who had no other defense of their client who is guilty six ways to sunday.

Well either they are right or not? Who are you to challenge them? That’s all

Someone smart enough to see their game.

You’re a genius in your own mind, I get it. He’s still your president, suck on that

 

[jc456]

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

Not liars necessarily. Just really bad lawyers who had no other defense of their client who is guilty six ways to sunday.

Well either they are right or not? Who are you to challenge them? That’s all

Someone smart enough to see their game.

Smart? Hahaha hahaha

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

Well the seven lawyers say differently, and son that buries your stupid ass

You dopes should really be ashamed. You watched and cheered dozens of committee investigations and hearings from the House throughout Obamas term and still don't have a clue about that process. So clueless in fact that even the most flimsy and transparent excuse offered by Trump's legal team goes completely unquestioned.

 

[jc456]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

Well the seven lawyers say differently, and son that buries your stupid ass

You dopes should really be ashamed. You watched and cheered dozens of committee investigations and hearings from the House throughout Obamas term and still don't have a clue about that process. So clueless in fact that even the most flimsy and transparent excuse offered by Trump's legal team goes completely unquestioned.

And he’s still your mthr fking president! Fk you

 

[Nostra]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

Well the seven lawyers say differently, and son that buries your stupid ass

You dopes should really be ashamed. You watched and cheered dozens of committee investigations and hearings from the House throughout Obamas term and still don't have a clue about that process. So clueless in fact that even the most flimsy and transparent excuse offered by Trump's legal team goes completely unquestioned.

^^^^^^^

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

There's no requirement to open impeachment to have a committee investigation.

They can't open impeachment without evidence that warrants impeachment, dope.

Well the seven lawyers say differently, and son that buries your stupid ass

You dopes should really be ashamed. You watched and cheered dozens of committee investigations and hearings from the House throughout Obamas term and still don't have a clue about that process. So clueless in fact that even the most flimsy and transparent excuse offered by Trump's legal team goes completely unquestioned.

And he’s still your mthr fking president! Fk you

Good job, loser.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.t dope

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE

Hey, dope, your "impeachment" is widely recognized as a political farce. No amount of your horseshit changes THAT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules.

Too bad your Democrats couldn't be bothered to make that case to a judge in order to uphold the subpoenas, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

How do I not know? Because I'm not emotionally invested in believing everything the Democrats do is perfect, so long as it's in service of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I repeat, Trump had every right to challenge their subpoenas, and the appropriate place to argue it out was in front of a judge, like every other challenged subpoena that occurs in this country. It is NOT in the media to pander to a bunch of legally-challenged halfwits like you.

Use your own brain, idiot.

In other words, I'm right, and you know it, and you hate it.

Thank you. Dismissed.

 

[WEATHER53]

They had no case so demanded somebody else craft one for them and then cried “foul” when no one did.
The New Democrat unity will be the tearing up of papers by everyone whenever Trumps besting of them is evident.