Rudy: not only would I testify, I would love to try the case as well

[bendog]

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said he would be willing to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if asked and would "love to try the case" if given the opportunity.

"I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures. I'd give summations," Giuliani said Tuesday night when asked about the possibility during a New Year's Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

"Or, I'd do what I do best: I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case," he said. "I don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but if you give me the case, I will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which I kind of invented anyway."

The former prosecutor said it had been 30 years since he tried such a case, "but let's see if I can still do it."

Trump impeachment: Rudy Giuliani willing to testify in Senate trial

Sounds like a pretty confident guy. Is he bluffing? Is he calling ass on Piglosi to go ahead and send the articles to the Senate and see what happens?

Without a doubt, nobody would let Rudy try the case, but his statement suggests he would be working very closely with Trump's defense. In light of Hunter's problems involving the paternity suit, criminal investigations of money laundering that include Burisma, and his tax lien,it certainly is looking like team Trump may have something on the Biden's.

Trump's ghoul is certainly to make impeachment not about his extorting Ukraine with aid for his personal political gain.

 

[Care4all]

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said he would be willing to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if asked and would "love to try the case" if given the opportunity.

"I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures. I'd give summations," Giuliani said Tuesday night when asked about the possibility during a New Year's Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

"Or, I'd do what I do best: I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case," he said. "I don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but if you give me the case, I will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which I kind of invented anyway."

The former prosecutor said it had been 30 years since he tried such a case, "but let's see if I can still do it."

Trump impeachment: Rudy Giuliani willing to testify in Senate trial

Sounds like a pretty confident guy. Is he bluffing? Is he calling ass on Piglosi to go ahead and send the articles to the Senate and see what happens?

Without a doubt, nobody would let Rudy try the case, but his statement suggests he would be working very closely with Trump's defense. In light of Hunter's problems involving the paternity suit, criminal investigations of money laundering that include Burisma, and his tax lien,it certainly is looking like team Trump may have something on the Biden's.

Trump's ghoul is certainly to make impeachment not about his extorting Ukraine with aid for his personal political gain.

The chief justice would never allow witnesses that had nothing to do with the charges against the defendant, to come in and testify.... but then the Senate, can vote to override the Chief Justices decision to not allow witnesses not related to the defense or prosecution, with 51 votes.

but this would put all Senators on record of overriding the wisdom of the chief justice, so it is not a guarantee that they could get 51 senators.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

There is nothing illegal about a quid pro quo
It is illegal to use US aid in return for personal favors
Favors that help you get elected

Maybe you need to look up what quid pro quo even means. Also look up what the word "favor" means. It means doing something without expectation of anything in return. Trump never once used US aid to bribe Zelensky for anything. The only testimony in the impeachment farce that spoke directly with Trump about it was Sondland. And Sondland testified that Trump instructed him of just the opposite of what the commies claim. All the other testimonies were about assumptions, second hand, third hand information.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

In fact, Trump did exactly that

It was Trump who tied military aid directly to receiving personal favors
There is no denying it

Sure there is denying it because Trump never said it.

 

[Paulie]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

Paulie,

it is not the president's job to do such, with his personal campaign lawyer Giuliani and two goons that were charged with money laundering $350,000 from Russians in to a Trump campaign PAC, illegaly. Whatever they gather as info, likely would not be able to be used in a court of law..

it is the DOJ's and FBI's job to do this, following the constitution of protecting American citizen's rights, while investigating, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S....

and no matter what is found, it has no bearing on Trump, BREAKING the Law.... his high crimes accusations....

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS WAS FOR PERSONAL GAIN....

THE only way Velensky could get the military aid and his coveted DC. Whitehouse meeting, was to make an announcement that the Ukraine prosecutors were reopening a case involving the Bidens....

NOW YOU HONESTLY TELL ME,

what was the goal and purpose of this being necessary, for the money/meeting?

Amb. Sondland testified that Velensky actually did not have to do the investigation, he just had to announce it on CNN....

CAN YOU explain that....?

Your first sentence is literally mind boggling to me. You have watched way too much television and been indoctrinated by way too much mainstream media opinions. That sentence alone, regardless of the rest of the horse shit you’ve spewed in this thread is enough to brand you an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

Biden did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine as part of an overall foreign policy with that country to encourage them to reform and overcome their corruption. He did it for the benefit of US foreign policy, not an individual personal benefit as did Trump.

Obama did assert executive privilege with Congress after having handed over thousands upon thousands of documents and having witnesses testify dozens of times in the congressional probe. Trump has blocked any and all requests and subpoenas from the House, which is a huge difference.

Saying Trump did it for personal reasons is like saying Joe did the same, by having the prosecutor who was investigating the firm his son worked for making 80K a month. I call that personal. Furthermore, there was no personal gain of any kind for Trump given Biden was not his opponent in the race. It's a Democrat lie.

 

[colfax_m]

The motivations of the whistleblower are irrelevant.

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows Trump’s phone call was problematic. Why do you think they locked it down so strictly?

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

Biden did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine as part of an overall foreign policy with that country to encourage them to reform and overcome their corruption. He did it for the benefit of US foreign policy, not an individual personal benefit as did Trump.

Obama did assert executive privilege with Congress after having handed over thousands upon thousands of documents and having witnesses testify dozens of times in the congressional probe. Trump has blocked any and all requests and subpoenas from the House, which is a huge difference.

Saying Trump did it for personal reasons is like saying Joe did the same, by having the prosecutor who was investigating the firm his son worked for making 80K a month. I call that personal. Furthermore, there was no personal gain of any kind for Trump given Biden was not his opponent in the race. It's a Democrat lie.

The prosecutor was not investigating the firm his son worked for.

If Biden isn’t an opponent of Trump, why is Trump running campaign ads against him?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Problematic is not impeachable or a crime. Not being articulate enough is not a crime.

Trump never did the things he's accused of in the impeachment. There is zero evidence of it. Biden did what Trump is accused of. DumBama did the things Trump is accused of, but everybody is supposed to ignore that, particularly on the left.

Yes, what needs to be known is if there were spies in the White House that were working on behalf of the Democrat party to overthrow Trump's presidency. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

Biden did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine as part of an overall foreign policy with that country to encourage them to reform and overcome their corruption. He did it for the benefit of US foreign policy, not an individual personal benefit as did Trump.

Obama did assert executive privilege with Congress after having handed over thousands upon thousands of documents and having witnesses testify dozens of times in the congressional probe. Trump has blocked any and all requests and subpoenas from the House, which is a huge difference.

Saying Trump did it for personal reasons is like saying Joe did the same, by having the prosecutor who was investigating the firm his son worked for making 80K a month. I call that personal. Furthermore, there was no personal gain of any kind for Trump given Biden was not his opponent in the race. It's a Democrat lie.

The prosecutor was not investigating the firm his son worked for.

If Biden isn’t an opponent of Trump, why is Trump running campaign ads against him?

The prosecutor said the exact opposite. According to Shokin, he was in the process of investigating money laundering by Hunter, and was about to confiscate Burisma assets. Now we find out a criminal investigation in the US started for the same reasons. Plus Hunter has owed back taxes for the last five years, and amazingly enough, the IRS never went after him. No fines, no accumulated interest, nothing.

 

[Care4all]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

Paulie,

it is not the president's job to do such, with his personal campaign lawyer Giuliani and two goons that were charged with money laundering $350,000 from Russians in to a Trump campaign PAC, illegaly. Whatever they gather as info, likely would not be able to be used in a court of law..

it is the DOJ's and FBI's job to do this, following the constitution of protecting American citizen's rights, while investigating, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S....

and no matter what is found, it has no bearing on Trump, BREAKING the Law.... his high crimes accusations....

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS WAS FOR PERSONAL GAIN....

THE only way Velensky could get the military aid and his coveted DC. Whitehouse meeting, was to make an announcement that the Ukraine prosecutors were reopening a case involving the Bidens....

NOW YOU HONESTLY TELL ME,

what was the goal and purpose of this being necessary, for the money/meeting?

Amb. Sondland testified that Velensky actually did not have to do the investigation, he just had to announce it on CNN....

CAN YOU explain that....?

Your first sentence is literally mind boggling to me. You have watched way too much television and been indoctrinated by way too much mainstream media opinions. That sentence alone, regardless of the rest of the horse shit you’ve spewed in this thread is enough to brand you an idiot.

Please explain your reasoning, as to why?

 

[XponentialChaos]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

 

[Paulie]

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

Paulie,

it is not the president's job to do such, with his personal campaign lawyer Giuliani and two goons that were charged with money laundering $350,000 from Russians in to a Trump campaign PAC, illegaly. Whatever they gather as info, likely would not be able to be used in a court of law..

it is the DOJ's and FBI's job to do this, following the constitution of protecting American citizen's rights, while investigating, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S....

and no matter what is found, it has no bearing on Trump, BREAKING the Law.... his high crimes accusations....

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS WAS FOR PERSONAL GAIN....

THE only way Velensky could get the military aid and his coveted DC. Whitehouse meeting, was to make an announcement that the Ukraine prosecutors were reopening a case involving the Bidens....

NOW YOU HONESTLY TELL ME,

what was the goal and purpose of this being necessary, for the money/meeting?

Amb. Sondland testified that Velensky actually did not have to do the investigation, he just had to announce it on CNN....

CAN YOU explain that....?

Your first sentence is literally mind boggling to me. You have watched way too much television and been indoctrinated by way too much mainstream media opinions. That sentence alone, regardless of the rest of the horse shit you’ve spewed in this thread is enough to brand you an idiot.

Please explain your reasoning, as to why?

The president takes en oath to defend the country against all enemies foreign AND domestic. If someone in government is committing crimes against the country, there is nothing whatsoever that precludes him from investigating it. Whether or not that person happens to be running for office is irrelevant. You can certainly TRY to make it seem like that’s the case, which the dems have done, but people aren’t buying it. The dems don’t even seem to feel confident about their case otherwise they would send the articles over and start the trial. In said trial, like any other trial, the defense has the right to call witnesses to testify just as the prosecution does.

Do you get it yet? Or do I need to write it in crayon?

 

[Siete]

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

Paulie,

it is not the president's job to do such, with his personal campaign lawyer Giuliani and two goons that were charged with money laundering $350,000 from Russians in to a Trump campaign PAC, illegaly. Whatever they gather as info, likely would not be able to be used in a court of law..

it is the DOJ's and FBI's job to do this, following the constitution of protecting American citizen's rights, while investigating, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S....

and no matter what is found, it has no bearing on Trump, BREAKING the Law.... his high crimes accusations....

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS WAS FOR PERSONAL GAIN....

THE only way Velensky could get the military aid and his coveted DC. Whitehouse meeting, was to make an announcement that the Ukraine prosecutors were reopening a case involving the Bidens....

NOW YOU HONESTLY TELL ME,

what was the goal and purpose of this being necessary, for the money/meeting?

Amb. Sondland testified that Velensky actually did not have to do the investigation, he just had to announce it on CNN....

CAN YOU explain that....?

Your first sentence is literally mind boggling to me. You have watched way too much television and been indoctrinated by way too much mainstream media opinions. That sentence alone, regardless of the rest of the horse shit you’ve spewed in this thread is enough to brand you an idiot.

Please explain your reasoning, as to why?

The president takes en oath to defend the country against all enemies foreign AND domestic. If someone in government is committing crimes against the country, there is nothing whatsoever that precludes him from investigating it. Whether or not that person happens to be running for office is irrelevant. You can certainly TRY to make it seem like that’s the case, which the dems have done, but people aren’t buying it. The dems don’t even seem to feel confident about their case otherwise they would send the articles over and start the trial. In said trial, like any other trial, the defense has the right to call witnesses to testify just as the prosecution does.

Do you get it yet? Or do I need to write it in crayon?

bla bla bla ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Trump got his fat ass impeached -

write that in crayon after you figure out the difference between a criminal trial and a political trial.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

 

[XponentialChaos]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

 

[White 6]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Ray, she's eaten Trumps lunch several times in public and at the White House. You probably saw the famous photograph of her point her finger at him across the table, while all the Republicans on his side were looking down or away and Trump had a visibly shocked look of a kid that was being called down by the teacher. She's got her faults, but she ain't worried about Rudy.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

You don't know? It's obvious. He's not going to testify.

Like Trump, he's just talking up a big game but he's not stupid enough to put himself into a position where he perjures himself.

 

[Care4all]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Why should anyone care what Rudy thinks he has on biden? It does not have anything to do with the charges of impeachment, against Trump... if the Bidens did anything criminal, they will have the DOJ bring charges against them?

President Trump and Giuliani, are using govt power with a foreign govt, to try to damage the campaign's political opponent.... there is no other evidence to support that Trump and Giuliani are doing this for Ukrainian corruption. Giuliani said from the beginning in public that he was doing this to help Trump, in his campaign..NOT the USA.

And THAT my dear, IS A CRIME.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

You don't know? It's obvious. He's not going to testify.

Like Trump, he's just talking up a big game but he's not stupid enough to put himself into a position where he perjures himself.

Maybe he won't. Maybe he'll just tell what he knows. He's been on evil right-wing talk shows telling of the stuff he dug up in Ukraine. Between him, Shokin, and what's going on in this paternity lawsuit, if it smells like garbage, it's probably garbage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Why should anyone care what Rudy thinks he has on biden? It does not have anything to do with the charges of impeachment, against Trump... if the Bidens did anything criminal, they will have the DOJ bring charges against them?

President Trump and Giuliani, are using govt power with a foreign govt, to try to damage the campaign's political opponent.... there is no other evidence to support that Trump and Giuliani are doing this for Ukrainian corruption. Giuliani said from the beginning in public that he was doing this to help Trump, in his campaign..NOT the USA.

And THAT my dear, IS A CRIME.

Rudy also claimed the State department asked him to go to Ukraine. He is also Trump's personal lawyer, and he can dig up anything he wants to prepare a defense for his client.