Nadler's salient point.

[berg80]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

 

[martybegan]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

Good god, you lost, move on.

Lol, with your "just ignore the evidence and try to see our stupid point of view that ORANGE MAN IS BAD" bullshit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

Nadler's greatest expertise is in creating failure for his Party.

 

[berg80]

Good god, you lost, move on.

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

Debate me in voice if you have stones big talker

Vocaroo | Online voice recorder

Vocaroo is a quick and easy way to share voice messages over the interwebs.

voca.ro

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

John Bolton is a Warmongering NeoCon, all of a sudden you think he is going to tell you the truth when you said he was nothing but a liar when he dragged US into 2 wars under Bush? Fuck, you guys are idiots...

 

[kyzr]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

FUCK NO!
Corrupt intent was illegally spying on the Trump campaign.
Corrupt intent was Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Corrupt intent was the "Russian Collusion Hoax" and the bullshit Mueller Investigation.
Corrupt intent was impeachment with no crime. (an actual abuse of power)

 

[Maxdeath]

I take it you and Nadler are crazy as hell and only think about the democrat party.
First off the democrats ran with the whole impeachment thing from Trumps first day in office. Exactly how do you have evidence of any wrong doing that early? Simple answer you don't.
Second they ran the trial like they were in charge of the third Riech. Only select witnesses only select questions, after extensive time spent coaching. Yet the Republicans were supposed to what roll over and play dead?
Third I remember during Slick Willies impeachment the democrats claiming everytime they were on tv that an impeachment must never be about partisan politics. Funny how that stand went right out the window.
Lastly the process worked the way it was supposed to work. One party does not get to play head while they trample over the other. If Trump was so guilty why has Schiff not pulled out all this evedince he has always claimed to have? Is he such a fan of Trumps that he wants to keep it hidden? During the impeachment would have been the perfect time to trot that out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

It's only corrupt when the other side does it, right?

You can't see the double standard?

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

There were no further "facts of the case" to be had. They were even more shallow than those originally presented.

The late-breaking "evidence" offered by Bolton has been debunked as comedic fiction by others present at the time of the events he describes. Trump simply wasn't interested in his globalist war fantasies and dumped him. Bolton became disgruntled in the classical sense.

In his fit of pique, he has now stated he will support Joe Biden the globalist. What a surprise.

Talk about burning bridges at both ends.

 

[Maxdeath]

John Bolton is a Warmongering NeoCon, all of a sudden you think he is going to tell you the truth when you said he was nothing but a liar when he dragged US into 2 wars under Bush? Fuck, you guys are idiots...

Bolton has already been called out for his misrepresentation of the facts. One of them being South Korea.

 

[berg80]

John Bolton is a Warmongering NeoCon, all of a sudden you think he is going to tell you the truth when you said he was nothing but a liar when he dragged US into 2 wars under Bush? Fuck, you guys are idiots...

Bolton's warmongering has no bearing on his credibility as a witness in the impeachment trial. I don't recall any Repub senator saying, "I refuse to call Bolton as a witness because he advocated for the invasion of Iraq."
The fact is, Bolton's observations of Trump in his book are absolutely consistent with what we know about the Divider-in-Chief. So...........your attempt to impugn Bolton as a witness is a failure in its execution and transparent in its motivation. Anything else?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Bolton's warmongering has no bearing on his credibility as a witness in the impeachment trial. I don't recall any Repub senator saying, "I refuse to call Bolton as a witness because he advocated for the invasion of Iraq."
The fact is, Bolton's observations of Trump in his book are absolutely consistent with what we know about the Divider-in-Chief. So...........your attempt to impugn Bolton as a witness is a failure in its execution and transparent in its motivation. Anything else?

Again, you are an idiot...I dont deal with idiots..

 

[berg80]

Bolton has already been called out for his misrepresentation of the facts. One of them being South Korea.

Repubs simply did not want to hear what Bolton had to say because they did not want to take the risk his testimony would make the vote they wanted to make untenable.

 

[Nostra]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

It was the House's job to collect evidence, moron.

 

[Nostra]

Bolton's warmongering has no bearing on his credibility as a witness in the impeachment trial. I don't recall any Repub senator saying, "I refuse to call Bolton as a witness because he advocated for the invasion of Iraq."
The fact is, Bolton's observations of Trump in his book are absolutely consistent with what we know about the Divider-in-Chief. So...........your attempt to impugn Bolton as a witness is a failure in its execution and transparent in its motivation. Anything else?

The House Clowns should have called him as a witness.

Oops!

 

[kyzr]

The House Clowns should have called him as a witness.

Oops!

The House knew that they could never get Bolton to testify in time.
The WH would just claim "executive privilege" and then it would take months to wind thru the courts to see if Bolton testifies or not.
If the Senate subpoenaed Bolton it would follow the same course, duh....

 

[Nostra]

Nadless hasn’t had a salient point since the Carter administration when he last saw his own pecker, pointed down and said”Oh, there it is.”

 

[martybegan]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

It was political, not corrupt, just like the impeachment was political, and not impartial.

Your side hacked its way to an impeachment, and you bitch about it.

Go fuck yourself, hard.

 

[hadit]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

The Senate's job is to hear the case the House presents. The House's job is to build its case. The Senate acted properly.