Democrats Don't Have Enough Crap To Say About Trump To Fill Up 24 hrs They're Repeating Themselves

[August West]

I think Adam Shifty Schiff should do a fund raiser...........where he is in the DUNKING BOOTH.....at the Fair..........so millions can WATER BOARD HIM by throwing baseballs at the dunk target...

I think you should work harder at being a grown up. Schiff took an oath to God, not your Orange Jesus.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think Adam Shifty Schiff should do a fund raiser...........where he is in the DUNKING BOOTH.....at the Fair..........so millions can WATER BOARD HIM by throwing baseballs at the dunk target...

I'd rather throw fastballs at his head.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Democrap's opening arguments are turning into a marathon of every nasty opinion they have about Donald Trump, an overt display of Trump Derangement Syndrome on the floor of the Senate. Every nasty bit of rubbish they've dreamed up about him since he took office is being spewed on the floor of the Senate. It's getting so bad that they're repeating themselves over and over.

Trust me....the Republicans won't need 24 hrs to spell out the malice and spite of the Democrats and their attempt to boot a legally elected president out of office, simply because they know he's going to kick their ass in an election.

Adam Schiff spent over 2 and a half hours talking about how rotten his opinion of Donald Trump is, using videos of Trump telling jokes at his rallies as evidence that he's involved in a massive coverup to hide his crimes. Never mind the fact that his comments were out in the open in front of thousands of people and television audience, which blows Schiff's claims of a coverup all to Hell.

The fawning press said that Schiff-face was brilliant and Jeffersonian....which only proves that the Democrats are colluding with the media to influence the election...and they are using impeachment as a campaign ad against Trump. They are proud to say they have been working to impeach Trump since he won election even before he was sworn in....and this fact utterly destroys their impeachment argument.

Tim Scott on House Democrats' Case: 'We've Not Heard Any Actual Evidence About 2020' | Breitbart

I think they meant George Jefferson

 

[eagle1462010]

I think Adam Shifty Schiff should do a fund raiser...........where he is in the DUNKING BOOTH.....at the Fair..........so millions can WATER BOARD HIM by throwing baseballs at the dunk target...

I think you should work harder at being a grown up. Schiff took an oath to God, not your Orange Jesus.

He's a Lying POS..............He's already been caught under Oath Lying his butt off.

He should be Disbarred.........

 

[Mac-7]

No. I am judging win or lose for the democrat witchhunters

the trump impeachment hoax is putting America to sleep

Why do Trumpsters have to keep on trying to tell us what Democrats are thinking.. You spend all day telling us what Democrats or others think...

Have you no ideas yourself, oh I forgot ye are busy suppressing Evidence and witnesses.. Innocent people don't hide, it is not the Supreme Court is going order Trump to release all of this evidence and compel WH staff to appear before congress anyway.

This is the problem in having a sham trial, the evidence will still get out.. By the way Americans want to have witnesses and evidence...

You are adopting the communist attitude that trump is guilty till he proves his innocence

but thats not the American way

house democrats had the power to subpoena all the witnesses and documents they needed but did not do so

they subpoenaed don mcghan in april & there still isn't a final decision on that. they subpoenaed charles kupperman, bolton's deputy, & kupperman countersued to refuse it, tying it up in court, with no end date in sight. that meant bolton would have done the samepossibly dragging it out for months. kupperman's suit was just decided on a couple weeks ago - where the judge threw it out. that's why john bolton, who wanted it to drag out to create more interest in his book is now saying (because his deputy's suit was thrown out) he will NOW testify if there is a subpeana.

are you afraid of what he might reveal? donny sure is.

You are complaining about a legal process that liberals have used AGAINST trump for three years by finding a liberal obama judge to issue an injunction against a trump policy that takes months or years to be overturned by the Supreme Court

now the shoe is on the other foot and libs dont like it

uh... no. whoever the circuit judge is - is the judge. 'liberals' don't get to 'choose', so right there you start out with a lie.

did you know - did yer 'news' station air the part on the first day - where the house wanted an amendment where...

now read this slowly...

(R) appointed chief justice roberts would have been allowed to decide who the witness would be testifying, whether it be bolton or a biden or both? leaving it up to him & ALL the (R) senators voted that amendment down?

huh... funny dat.

I would not trust roberts to choose anything having to do with politics

he’s. a liberal flunky

 

[Mac-7]

The Democrap's opening arguments are turning into a marathon of every nasty opinion they have about Donald Trump, an overt display of Trump Derangement Syndrome on the floor of the Senate. Every nasty bit of rubbish they've dreamed up about him since he took office is being spewed on the floor of the Senate. It's getting so bad that they're repeating themselves over and over.

Trust me....the Republicans won't need 24 hrs to spell out the malice and spite of the Democrats and their attempt to boot a legally elected president out of office, simply because they know he's going to kick their ass in an election.

Adam Schiff spent over 2 and a half hours talking about how rotten his opinion of Donald Trump is, using videos of Trump telling jokes at his rallies as evidence that he's involved in a massive coverup to hide his crimes. Never mind the fact that his comments were out in the open in front of thousands of people and television audience, which blows Schiff's claims of a coverup all to Hell.

The fawning press said that Schiff-face was brilliant and Jeffersonian....which only proves that the Democrats are colluding with the media to influence the election...and they are using impeachment as a campaign ad against Trump. They are proud to say they have been working to impeach Trump since he won election even before he was sworn in....and this fact utterly destroys their impeachment argument.

Tim Scott on House Democrats' Case: 'We've Not Heard Any Actual Evidence About 2020' | Breitbart

Call your senator, tell him to vote to allow witnesses. You won't be bored then.

Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial. They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing. Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.

change yer diaper lenny, cause you are full of shit. when you lie about everything, then it shows how weak yer argument truly is.

'Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial.'

Senate has held 15 impeachment trials
The Senate has held just two prior impeachment trials against presidents — Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. Both included witnesses.

The Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses in the Johnson proceeding, and three for Clinton, including Monica Lewinsky. In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported.

But those aren’t the only impeachments the Senate has heard. The U.S. Senate website lists 19 people prior to Trump who were impeached by the House, including 14 judges, a senator, a Supreme Court justice and the secretary of war.

Cases against three of the judges were halted before a trial when the judges resigned, and the case against Sen. William Blount in 1799 — the first impeachment in U.S. history — stopped before trial when the Senate determined it didn’t have such jurisdiction over one of its own.

That leaves 13 impeachment trials against other federal officials dating back to 1804. Eight of those yielded a guilty verdict, and five a not-guilty finding.

But all of them involved witnesses, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

'They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing.'

they had real witness' lenny. all testifying under oath. & a FIRST PERSON witness, Lt Colonel Vindman, was one of 11 people who was tasked with listening in on that 'perfect' phone call.

'Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.'

fake news, leonard, fake news. the witness' were disposed during classified hearings in the SCIFF, that the (R)s on the specific committees WHO WERE THERE, were able to be heard during the open public hearings ie volker & morrison. they did a bang up job for the (D)s 'cause - - - donny done fucked up & they pretty much said so.

Nice try.

but lewenski was not a close confidant of bill clinton who fell under the executive privilege claim

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

 

[Crepitus]

Call your senator, tell him to vote to allow witnesses. You won't be bored then.

Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial. They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing. Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.

change yer diaper lenny, cause you are full of shit. when you lie about everything, then it shows how weak yer argument truly is.

'Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial.'

Senate has held 15 impeachment trials
The Senate has held just two prior impeachment trials against presidents — Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. Both included witnesses.

The Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses in the Johnson proceeding, and three for Clinton, including Monica Lewinsky. In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported.

But those aren’t the only impeachments the Senate has heard. The U.S. Senate website lists 19 people prior to Trump who were impeached by the House, including 14 judges, a senator, a Supreme Court justice and the secretary of war.

Cases against three of the judges were halted before a trial when the judges resigned, and the case against Sen. William Blount in 1799 — the first impeachment in U.S. history — stopped before trial when the Senate determined it didn’t have such jurisdiction over one of its own.

That leaves 13 impeachment trials against other federal officials dating back to 1804. Eight of those yielded a guilty verdict, and five a not-guilty finding.

But all of them involved witnesses, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

'They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing.'

they had real witness' lenny. all testifying under oath. & a FIRST PERSON witness, Lt Colonel Vindman, was one of 11 people who was tasked with listening in on that 'perfect' phone call.

'Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.'

fake news, leonard, fake news. the witness' were disposed during classified hearings in the SCIFF, that the (R)s on the specific committees WHO WERE THERE, were able to be heard during the open public hearings ie volker & morrison. they did a bang up job for the (D)s 'cause - - - donny done fucked up & they pretty much said so.

Nice try.

but lewenski was not a close confidant of bill clinton who fell under the executive privilege claim

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

 

[Mac-7]

Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial. They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing. Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.

change yer diaper lenny, cause you are full of shit. when you lie about everything, then it shows how weak yer argument truly is.

'Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial.'

Senate has held 15 impeachment trials
The Senate has held just two prior impeachment trials against presidents — Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. Both included witnesses.

The Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses in the Johnson proceeding, and three for Clinton, including Monica Lewinsky. In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported.

But those aren’t the only impeachments the Senate has heard. The U.S. Senate website lists 19 people prior to Trump who were impeached by the House, including 14 judges, a senator, a Supreme Court justice and the secretary of war.

Cases against three of the judges were halted before a trial when the judges resigned, and the case against Sen. William Blount in 1799 — the first impeachment in U.S. history — stopped before trial when the Senate determined it didn’t have such jurisdiction over one of its own.

That leaves 13 impeachment trials against other federal officials dating back to 1804. Eight of those yielded a guilty verdict, and five a not-guilty finding.

But all of them involved witnesses, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

'They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing.'

they had real witness' lenny. all testifying under oath. & a FIRST PERSON witness, Lt Colonel Vindman, was one of 11 people who was tasked with listening in on that 'perfect' phone call.

'Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.'

fake news, leonard, fake news. the witness' were disposed during classified hearings in the SCIFF, that the (R)s on the specific committees WHO WERE THERE, were able to be heard during the open public hearings ie volker & morrison. they did a bang up job for the (D)s 'cause - - - donny done fucked up & they pretty much said so.

Nice try.

but lewenski was not a close confidant of bill clinton who fell under the executive privilege claim

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

Trump is under no obligation to cooperate or assist in the House democrat witch hunt

he has every right to invoke executive privilege and then dems have to challenge him in court

which they chose not to do

 

[Crepitus]

change yer diaper lenny, cause you are full of shit. when you lie about everything, then it shows how weak yer argument truly is.

'Democrats are crying for witnesses because it's something that normally isn't done during the Senate trial.'

Senate has held 15 impeachment trials
The Senate has held just two prior impeachment trials against presidents — Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. Both included witnesses.

The Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses in the Johnson proceeding, and three for Clinton, including Monica Lewinsky. In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported.

But those aren’t the only impeachments the Senate has heard. The U.S. Senate website lists 19 people prior to Trump who were impeached by the House, including 14 judges, a senator, a Supreme Court justice and the secretary of war.

Cases against three of the judges were halted before a trial when the judges resigned, and the case against Sen. William Blount in 1799 — the first impeachment in U.S. history — stopped before trial when the Senate determined it didn’t have such jurisdiction over one of its own.

That leaves 13 impeachment trials against other federal officials dating back to 1804. Eight of those yielded a guilty verdict, and five a not-guilty finding.

But all of them involved witnesses, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

'They could have gotten REAL witnesses during the House impeachment......but there really aren't any. Instead they got a bunch of diplomats and legal experts to give their opinions, not testify to any evidence of wrongdoing.'

they had real witness' lenny. all testifying under oath. & a FIRST PERSON witness, Lt Colonel Vindman, was one of 11 people who was tasked with listening in on that 'perfect' phone call.

'Any witnesses that offered exculpatory evidence was silenced during their secret SCIFF hearings.'

fake news, leonard, fake news. the witness' were disposed during classified hearings in the SCIFF, that the (R)s on the specific committees WHO WERE THERE, were able to be heard during the open public hearings ie volker & morrison. they did a bang up job for the (D)s 'cause - - - donny done fucked up & they pretty much said so.

Nice try.

but lewenski was not a close confidant of bill clinton who fell under the executive privilege claim

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

Trump is under no obligation to cooperate or assist in the House democrat witch hunt

he has every right to invoke executive privilege and then dems have to challenge him in court

which they chose not to do

Lol, you've got a little orange on ya, right at the end of your nose.....

 

[Mac-7]

Nice try.

but lewenski was not a close confidant of bill clinton who fell under the executive privilege claim

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

Trump is under no obligation to cooperate or assist in the House democrat witch hunt

he has every right to invoke executive privilege and then dems have to challenge him in court

which they chose not to do

Lol, you've got a little orange on ya, right at the end of your nose.....

Personal insults will not let you escape logic and truth

 

[playtime]

Why do Trumpsters have to keep on trying to tell us what Democrats are thinking.. You spend all day telling us what Democrats or others think...

Have you no ideas yourself, oh I forgot ye are busy suppressing Evidence and witnesses.. Innocent people don't hide, it is not the Supreme Court is going order Trump to release all of this evidence and compel WH staff to appear before congress anyway.

This is the problem in having a sham trial, the evidence will still get out.. By the way Americans want to have witnesses and evidence...

You are adopting the communist attitude that trump is guilty till he proves his innocence

but thats not the American way

house democrats had the power to subpoena all the witnesses and documents they needed but did not do so

they subpoenaed don mcghan in april & there still isn't a final decision on that. they subpoenaed charles kupperman, bolton's deputy, & kupperman countersued to refuse it, tying it up in court, with no end date in sight. that meant bolton would have done the samepossibly dragging it out for months. kupperman's suit was just decided on a couple weeks ago - where the judge threw it out. that's why john bolton, who wanted it to drag out to create more interest in his book is now saying (because his deputy's suit was thrown out) he will NOW testify if there is a subpeana.

are you afraid of what he might reveal? donny sure is.

You are complaining about a legal process that liberals have used AGAINST trump for three years by finding a liberal obama judge to issue an injunction against a trump policy that takes months or years to be overturned by the Supreme Court

now the shoe is on the other foot and libs dont like it

uh... no. whoever the circuit judge is - is the judge. 'liberals' don't get to 'choose', so right there you start out with a lie.

did you know - did yer 'news' station air the part on the first day - where the house wanted an amendment where...

now read this slowly...

(R) appointed chief justice roberts would have been allowed to decide who the witness would be testifying, whether it be bolton or a biden or both? leaving it up to him & ALL the (R) senators voted that amendment down?

huh... funny dat.

I would not trust roberts to choose anything having to do with politics

he’s. a liberal flunky

ummmm....citizen's united?

you're an idiot.

 

[Crepitus]

learn to read. we are talking about witness' & lenny said there are never any witness' in a senate trial. that was a lie. i showed that it was a lie.
too bad your deflection didn't work for you.

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

Trump is under no obligation to cooperate or assist in the House democrat witch hunt

he has every right to invoke executive privilege and then dems have to challenge him in court

which they chose not to do

Lol, you've got a little orange on ya, right at the end of your nose.....

Personal insults will not let you escape logic and truth

Good thing you didn't present any logic or truth then.

 

[Mac-7]

You are adopting the communist attitude that trump is guilty till he proves his innocence

but thats not the American way

house democrats had the power to subpoena all the witnesses and documents they needed but did not do so

they subpoenaed don mcghan in april & there still isn't a final decision on that. they subpoenaed charles kupperman, bolton's deputy, & kupperman countersued to refuse it, tying it up in court, with no end date in sight. that meant bolton would have done the samepossibly dragging it out for months. kupperman's suit was just decided on a couple weeks ago - where the judge threw it out. that's why john bolton, who wanted it to drag out to create more interest in his book is now saying (because his deputy's suit was thrown out) he will NOW testify if there is a subpeana.

are you afraid of what he might reveal? donny sure is.

You are complaining about a legal process that liberals have used AGAINST trump for three years by finding a liberal obama judge to issue an injunction against a trump policy that takes months or years to be overturned by the Supreme Court

now the shoe is on the other foot and libs dont like it

uh... no. whoever the circuit judge is - is the judge. 'liberals' don't get to 'choose', so right there you start out with a lie.

did you know - did yer 'news' station air the part on the first day - where the house wanted an amendment where...

now read this slowly...

(R) appointed chief justice roberts would have been allowed to decide who the witness would be testifying, whether it be bolton or a biden or both? leaving it up to him & ALL the (R) senators voted that amendment down?

huh... funny dat.

I would not trust roberts to choose anything having to do with politics

he’s. a liberal flunky

ummmm....citizen's united?

you're an idiot.

I concede that roberts is neither fish nor foul

he‘s a fence sitter who does not know what he is from one issue to the next

i think he just flips a coin and hoes with that

 

[Mac-7]

Ok, someone misspoke and you corrected him

the House democrats rushed impeachment before they had all their ducks in order

and now you want republicans in the senate to clean up your mess

no thanks

No. Someone lied and he set them straight.

The house inquiry chose .it to fight the subpoenas because it was a delaying tactic. Yes, they probably would have won in a year of so. After tRump cheated on another election, further damaging our election process.

Nobody wants that.

Except Moscow Mitch.

Trump is under no obligation to cooperate or assist in the House democrat witch hunt

he has every right to invoke executive privilege and then dems have to challenge him in court

which they chose not to do

Lol, you've got a little orange on ya, right at the end of your nose.....

Personal insults will not let you escape logic and truth

Good thing you didn't present any logic or truth then.

I did but it failed to penitrate your liberal bias