McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good luck getting a court to force Trump to do anything in a situation that's already over. They don't want to get involved in fishing expeditions.

What’s over? Impeachment? There’s still oversight. Oversight doesn’t end just because the trial is over.

Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.

If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.

No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.

No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.

Who says it’s been settled?

The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.

Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

this is your speculation.

but for shits and grins, who decides foreign policy again?

The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.

Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's. A story is not evidence.

 

[colfax_m]

The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.

Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

Name the cases.

Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I didn't say that. What I said is Trump was Hillary's opponent, and a Hillary win would have protected DumBama's legacy. That's what I said.

So were they political opponents or not? How is it any different than Trump/Biden?

You really don’t have to die on this hill. It’s okay to admit if you’re wrong.

How am I wrong? DumBama had a reason to see Trump defeated. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he was instrumental in that goal.

Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.

If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

 

[colfax_m]

The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.

Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's. A story is not evidence.

The fact that he didn’t involved the DoJ. Circumstantial. The fact that he didn’t involved the State Dept. Circumstantial. The fact he involved his private attorney. Circumstantial. The fact that he demanded it be publicly announced. Circumstantial. The fact that he lied about it. Circumstantial.

When all the circumstantial evidence points the exact same place, and nothing detracts from it, it reaches the level of proof.

 

[colfax_m]

So were they political opponents or not? How is it any different than Trump/Biden?

You really don’t have to die on this hill. It’s okay to admit if you’re wrong.

How am I wrong? DumBama had a reason to see Trump defeated. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he was instrumental in that goal.

Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.

If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

 

[colfax_m]

What’s over? Impeachment? There’s still oversight. Oversight doesn’t end just because the trial is over.

Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.

If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.

No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.

No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.

Who says it’s been settled?

The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.

Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.

Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.

Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.

...as supported by all the evidence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, it does. The situation has been decided by both House and Senate. It's over.

If they wanted to get the court involved for the impeachment, they had every opportunity to do so. The court might have given them what they wanted too. But they couldn't wait. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Now they have to live with that.

No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.

No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.

Who says it’s been settled?

The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.

Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.

Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.

Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.

Moving the goal posts again? I thought they were going to fight this to prove Trump had something to do with a quid pro quo. Congress knows how every dollar is spent because they pass the spending.

 

[Lakhota]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.

...as supported by all the evidence.

Then it's supported by nothing because there is no evidence. Claiming mind reading abilities is not evidence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

Glad you're happy, because so are we.

 

[Lakhota]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

Glad you're happy, because so are we.

I am happy! Extremely happy! We'll see how happy you are in November. Gloat while you can...

 

[colfax_m]

No, it doesn’t. There’s nothing stopping Democrats from continuing to push for subpoenas to be honored in court.

No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.

Who says it’s been settled?

The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.

Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.

Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.

Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.

Moving the goal posts again? I thought they were going to fight this to prove Trump had something to do with a quid pro quo. Congress knows how every dollar is spent because they pass the spending.

Congress passes the laws. The executive executes them. Therefore Congress has a pretty unquestionable authority to know if the laws they passed were executed. That’s more than enough reason to get a subpoena. Now, what’s Trump’s argument for stopping it?

 

[DamnDude]

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

Who gets to set foreign policy?

I thought we had that one covered.

As for the rest, you FEELING IT isn't factual. If there were proof I'd be against it. But instead we have a shit show from some dems who've been after Impeach 45 since day 1. I said long ago that you cry wolf often enough people just tune you out.

And witnesses decide not to show up.

If we proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Trump team has it covered because apparently even if he is using foreign policy to hurt his political opponents, that’s not impeachable.

Tell you what, prove it to that degree and I'm in.

So do you want to hear from all the witnesses then?

Gonna jump in here.
No, I don't want to hear from any more "witnesses" for the simple fact of the hearsay grounds this is all based on.
Not a single one of the "witnesses" in the impeachment hearing supplied any first hand information. They gave suppositions, opinions and feels. Had the whistleblower been first hand accuser then maybe this goes somewhere, maybe it doesn't. To get the IG to change the rules to allow for hearsay is complete and utter garbage that not a single one of us should be subject to have to defend against.
Furthermore, the tactics used and the rules implemented by the House INTELLIGENCE committee to do the impeachment hearing (as opposed to where it belonged in the judiciary) was highly irregular, but hey, their monkey their rules.
The democrats blocking and denial of a true due process, fumbling their own process, not having an actual crime to accuse the president of and then using the media to make their case for them in the court of public opinion and also the utter contempt to go into the senate chamber to try and shame them into furthering their fouled up investigation.... Well, these are the ass clowns in charge of the purse of our country... And I'm pretty sick and tired of them wasting dollar after dime on investigation after investigation after investigation. President Trump won the election, and all the House dems seem to do is try their damnedest is to overturn the 2016 election. They need to get over in and start legislating instead of investigating and start running the nation in a manner it should be.

 

[iceberg]

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

Name the cases.

Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.

Court cases where this happened please.

 

[iceberg]

This is not circumstantial evidence. It's the commies making up their own story why Trump was asking about the Biden's.

...as supported by all the evidence.

Which evidence proves intent?

I can show you 3+ years of intent to impeach Trump for anything they could muster. WE KNOW that's what they've been after.

The rest you swallow cause you like the taste.

 

[Siete]

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

Name the cases.

Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.

Court cases where this happened please.

political trial

criminal trial

explain the difference

which one pertains to an impeachment ?

 

[yidnar]

McConnell says he doesn't have the votes.

Three Democrat presidential candidates may be neutered.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then it's supported by nothing because there is no evidence.

Which is embarrassing, peak Trump cultism on your part. Let's demonstrate:

Name some examples of evidence that would have compelled you. Three will do.