CNN Anchor Tells Nancy Pelosi That Trump Was Acquitted — She Interrupts, Claims He Wasn’t

[Care4all]

Bullshit be specific now and show us where in the 1868 one the Senate called unquestioned witnesses.

Without even searching, the Defense called 16 of their own witness that would not have been part of the House's witnesses...

To be specific the house does not interview defense witnesses. And to the point Trump's defense never ask for any.

He had no defence, because he was guilty.... there was no one that he could call....that's why his lawyers argued he was above the Law... And made up their "the process was unfair" bull crud.

And he knew the FIX WAS IN to acquit

 

[Care4all]

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

 

[Care4all]

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

Trump hasn't broken any laws, dingbat.

He broke laws and he broke his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the law.

 

[hadit]

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th
Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

The House could have done the same, but did nothing for a month.

 

[hadit]

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

Trump hasn't broken any laws, dingbat.

He broke laws and he broke his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the law.

He wasn't charged with breaking the law.

 

[The Original Tree]

Trump broke Box Wine Nancy.



Chief Justice Roberts:

"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is
hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles"

She is Insane, and has received The Curse of Delusion as God said He would give people who practice Evil, and take His Name in vane and do all manner of Evil Plotting, Lying, Wickedness, Sedition, Treason and Usurpations.

 

[The Original Tree]

She has a point.... Clinton was acquitted after a real trial, with witnesses and with evidence submitted, from both sides....

There was no real trial, with evidence and witnesses in Trumps....

I don't think there was ever a criminal, civic or impeachment trial in our entire history of a Nation, that did not permit witness testimony and documented evidence, as was with this SHAM trial......

THAT will forever be the *asterisk next to the Trump Acquittal.....

they should have just allowed them.... he was going to likely be acquitted anyway, on a partisan basis, but at least it would have made the trial appear to be, a trial and not the shameful, blatant, not questionable, the fix is in SCAM that it was....

Again, you are just as Delusional, Insane and Mentally Unstable as Pelosi. Thank God she doesn't have her finger on the Nuclear Button.

The Democrats called 21 Witnesses in The Shampeachment Inquiry and allowed The GOP 1 Witness. They denied all cross examination of The Witnesses, and with held The IG Transcript, and refused to allow the Fake Whistle Blower to testify. The set themselves up with a 24-17 advantage (hows that for stacking a jury) and did not allow a single motion by The GOP to carry. Pelosi even ordered the drafting of Articles BEFORE the Shaminquiry was completed.

In The Phony Mueller Probe known as COUP 1.0 The President complied with 2,500 Subpoenas, turned over 1 Million documents, allowed 500 interviews, and allowed 500 search warrants.

Your party stole MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from The American People and spent it on 2 COUPs to remove a Duly Elected President.

How many times a week do they let you out of your straight jacket to post on USMB?

 

[iceberg]

What job did they refuse to do...? Go to court for years because of the president's stonewalling by tying witnesses and evidence up in the courts?

that's all bull crud.

When we already have precedence from the Supreme Court, witnesses and TAPES, like in the NIXON TAPES of his personal doings with his full administration, could NOT be held back from the impeachment inquirers on the basis of Executive privilege.... period.

Just think about it, there would be no reason for the Founders to even put impeachment in to the Constitution, if the President could legally stonewall the impeachment investigation for months or years by denying subpoenas and admin witnesses, and then tying it up in the court for months or years....to get the subpoena witnesses and evidence....

It would completely nullify the power given to the House on Impeachment....

They didn’t even send Bolton a subpoena.

Your excuses for them not doing their job isn’t working. They rushed it so they could go on vacation.

His assistant already had one wo was called to testify first, and took it to court, and bolton shared the same lawyer with him....

and remember, it was at the time of the impeachment, 10 months of the House trying to get Don Mcghan to testify on the Mueller report , trump obstruction of Justice.... and the president has fought it all the way, all the courts have ruled HE HAS TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, and the president keeps appealing it, it is now up to the SC level and if they take the case....not certain if they have.... and if they do, it will be another 5 or 6 months.... and likely not to give a ruling till after the election so not to interfere with it...

the president's plan of STONEWALLING was and is working for him....

AND THAT IS NOT, what our Founders had in mind with the power of Impeachment given to the House.

The House already knew it would take years of court battles to get through all of Trump's obstruction, in to his own impeachment.... and impeachment is not something that one can wait a half a year or two.... sorry, I do not agree with you if you think it should....

Excuses....excuses....excuses....

The House didn’t do its job. Period.

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

doesn't it simply mean i'm tired of "whelming" - i'm "over it"?

 

[iceberg]

does that make Trump any less guilty?

Lamar Alexander R, says the evidence was OVERWHELMING and proved Trump was guilty as charged.... only Lamar's excuse is that he didn't want him removed and he'd rather let voters decide in November....

That is Lamar Alexander's opinion and his problem for not acting on it.

Just because he said, does not make it true.

It's not a reflection on Trump that Alexander doesn't have any balls.

And to OVERWHELMING....then why do you stupid asses keep saying you need witnesses.

Do you know what OVERWHELMING means ?

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

I have REPEATEDLY ask you to list for us in any previous IMPEACHMENT the witnesses the Senate called that were NOT originally called by and interviewed by the HOUSE. I must assume your failure to do so means there have been NONE EVER. I will repeat for you, because you obviously are to stupid to have grasp it yet, even though I have posted it several times now,The HOUSE Investigates, they call witnesses and they gather evidence. They are tasked with that part of the Impeachment procedures. The Senate is task with hearing from the House managers all the charges , the House presents all the testimony and evidence they have gathered that support those charges. The ONLY time the Senate has EVER called a witness was when they wanted clarification from some witness the House had already interviewed. The Senate then votes on the individual charges.

Dude, you are banging your head against a retarded wall..........and you would get a more coherent response from that retarded wall.

I will not let her LIE repeatedly about how an Impeachment works. There may actually be people that read this stuff that do not know she is LYING.

might as well tell her to stop breathing.

its just what she does.

 

[iceberg]

Bullshit be specific now and show us where in the 1868 one the Senate called unquestioned witnesses.

Without even searching, the Defense called 16 of their own witness that would not have been part of the House's witnesses...

girl, he's rolled you up and smoked your ass. you keep shouting and pasting a lot of irrelevant shit and then demanding people find relevance in your lingering bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

Trump hasn't broken any laws, dingbat.

He broke laws and he broke his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the law.

What laws did he break? How about the one that says work permits are given only to aliens who are legally in the country?

 

[bripat9643]

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th
Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Because the Trump team With all republican senators voting to have the material witnesses, would have boxed him in.... He needed them to acquit him... his threats to what he'd do to them if they did not support him would be nullified, cuz they would have held the upper hand.

If he fought the subpoena it would have been visible and front and center, to the public who would know he was acting guilty to fight them, if he was innocent... causing for more calls to impeach him out of office

The courts, in the middle of a trial would have been fast tracked if they were used, and his appointed judges could not help his stonewalling with the world watching and chief justice watching.

Trump would not have wanted the impeachment trial hanging open, and over his head....

____________

Any one of those reasons above.....??

You mean it would have been a circus?

 

[Nostra]

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th

the FIX WAS IN, SHAM impeachment TRIAL

Will go down in History... there will be hundreds of books by Historians recapping the FACTS of what actually happened.

It's NOT going to be swept under the rug or forgotten, if we still have a country left, 100 or 500 years from now.

You and Trump can not just cover your eyes and cover your ears or make up crap to change the actual facts...

it just ain't gonna happen...

yes, the SHAM trial, with no witnesses and evidence allowed, resulted in an acquittal....



He was acquitted, but we ALL KNOW WHY..... and HISTORY will record such. Period.

Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Nope. The Senate doesn't have some magic subpoena power the House doesn't have.

The House Clowns were lazy and in a hurry. Blaming the Senate for not doing the job the Constitution delegates to the House is idiotic, but that's all single digit IQ Dimwingers can come up with at this point.

 

[Nostra]

No, he as always been 100% not guilty.

TOTAL EXONERATION!

he was not totally exonerated.... his record and charges were not expunged.

Exonerated FOREVER.

Are democrats going to impeach president Trump again?

No guarantee one way or the other imo, it's all up to President Trump, and how far he will take his own bold lawlessness! (if he gets much worse, Christ will come and save us, from the antichrist's wrath so we won't need impeachment)

Trump hasn't broken any laws, dingbat.

He broke laws and he broke his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the law.

Lies.

 

[The Original Tree]

Let's also not forget that Nadler and Schiff broke House Rules and also refused to allow Minority Due Process Day which is actually written in The Rules and mandated.

Let's also remember that they denied The President and his Counsel Due Process and Cross Examination, Right to call their own witnesses, face their accusers, and the right to see evidence against them.

They also hid The IG Interview Transcript, and refused to turn over any documentation regarding The Whistle Blower per The Discovery Rules of DUE PROCESS.

And they were able to violate The President's Civil Rights and The Rights of The Minority all because they stacked these committees with a 24-17 Advantage Manufacturing a Super Majority to Rail Road through whatever they wanted.

 

[Flash]

It always amazes me how delusional these Moon Bats are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It took balls for any Republican Senator to be impartial and vote for and with the truth, that they all knew was the OVERWHELMING truth....

No Republican Senator had balls....to vote with the truth and the Law, THEY GAVE THOSE BALLS AWAY BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and sealed the deal when they voted for no witnesses and no evidence to be presented in the trial...

the fear of The Wrath of Trump was too frightening for them....they were shakin' in their boots, ALL ball less....

except Romney,
but to you all, he's a useless piece of shit, RINO

That and some serious Never-Trump hate/jealousy.


Romney has shown himself to be a serious asshurt SOB.

.

 

[hadit]

Moron, again JUST for you...... The HOUSE does the Investigation, they call the witnesses and they amass the evidence. Once they feel they have enough th
Good GOD you are BEYOND STUPID.

Here let me help you out.

The way Impeachment works is the HOUSE investigates gathers evidence calls witnesses and brings the case together. The JOB to call witnesses rests SOLELY with the HOUSE. I asked you before to name a single witness called to Clinton's Impeachment that was not questioned by the House.

The Senate hears the Houses evidence and looks at their evidence and MAY on occasion call a witness the HOUSE ALREADY TALKED TOO, for clarity. It is not and never has been the responsibility of the Senate to call witnesses that the HOUSE did not call and question. EVER.

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Nope. The Senate doesn't have some magic subpoena power the House doesn't have.

The House Clowns were lazy and in a hurry. Blaming the Senate for not doing the job the Constitution delegates to the House is idiotic, but that's all single digit IQ Dimwingers can come up with at this point.

I believe they set it up like this on purpose to give themselves cover when it all fell apart. They knew there was no way they could get a conviction with that weak case, and needed something their minions could latch onto.

 

[bripat9643]

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Nope. The Senate doesn't have some magic subpoena power the House doesn't have.

The House Clowns were lazy and in a hurry. Blaming the Senate for not doing the job the Constitution delegates to the House is idiotic, but that's all single digit IQ Dimwingers can come up with at this point.

I believe they set it up like this on purpose to give themselves cover when it all fell apart. They knew there was no way they could get a conviction with that weak case, and needed something their minions could latch onto.

BINGO!

 

[Nostra]

RGS, in Clinton's impeachment it was a special prosecutor with a grand jury, that did the depositions of witnesses, KEN STARR..... remember? Then the Starr report was all turned over to the House, and this is what they used. The DOJ/Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crimes of the president done in the Ukraine, so the House had to do the best they could, all on their own, with a DOJ acting as the president's personal law team instead of the USA's...

They, the House could have gone to COURT to get the witnesses and that is what is REQUIRED when a witness refuses to come forward using the means they used. At least tell the smae lies through out a thread we can all go back and read again. The House did not call them not because they did not know about them but because they said it would take to long in the Courts.

so you are claiming that any and all witnesses that The House subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry do not have to show up and any and all evidence the house subpoenas can be denied, unless they take a year or two tying it up in the courts before they can get them?

I don't think so.... nor would our founders of the constitution.

Why would it be any faster in the Senate?

Nope. The Senate doesn't have some magic subpoena power the House doesn't have.

The House Clowns were lazy and in a hurry. Blaming the Senate for not doing the job the Constitution delegates to the House is idiotic, but that's all single digit IQ Dimwingers can come up with at this point.

I believe they set it up like this on purpose to give themselves cover when it all fell apart. They knew there was no way they could get a conviction with that weak case, and needed something their minions could latch onto.

Yep, and their window licking base on this board is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Morons.