Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[colfax_m]

They’d be questioned by the impeachment manager filling the role as prosecutor and I believe they’d be following the same rules as any witness in a trial that is managed by Roberts. A howling mob it most certainly is not.

It has far more to do with having to be under oath and the possibility that they might have to tell the truth.

That’s one hell of a scary thing for these thugs.

If the house case is too weak to proceed on it's own, perhaps the house should get their shit together before hand.

.

You guys are really worried about the truth coming out, aren’t you?

No, it's about due process. The house was in too big a hurry to afford the WH any due process, don't cry when they suffer the consequences of that haste and can't prove their case. The senate is not the place to continue the house investigation.

.

Due process? Baloney. Trump received more due process than he deserved.

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

 

[colfax_m]

Who said he shouldn't be investigated?

And thats all trump wants to do

No phony FISA warrants or Deep State squealers lurking in the bushes around bidens mansion

Just an open investigation of the facts

Then Trump should have gone about it in a legal manner.

He is

Nope, he didn't. If was illegal for him to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

Thats kangaroo court injustice

Since when are we cool with politicians directing investigations against their rivals? That’s some real corrupt Soviet tactics right there.

 

[OKTexas]

If the house case is too weak to proceed on it's own, perhaps the house should get their shit together before hand.

.

You guys are really worried about the truth coming out, aren’t you?

No, it's about due process. The house was in too big a hurry to afford the WH any due process, don't cry when they suffer the consequences of that haste and can't prove their case. The senate is not the place to continue the house investigation.

.

Due process? Baloney. Trump received more due process than he deserved.

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

 

[Thinker101]

What?! You didn't like Schiff's evidence?

I like Schiff's evidence a lot, more so since it stood unopposed by testimony by Pompeo and Mulvaney, who couldn't find the sorry remnants of their spines if their lives depended on it. It is easily enough to impeach your Dear Leader, and it's more than sufficient to remove the clownish goon - and removed he would be, if two dozen GOP Senators could find their misplaced consciences. Yeah, I know, fat chance.

Honestly, Thinker, read that thing, and explain to the forum how, while maintaining a shred of self-respect, you manage to support that raging loon, please. For even if conviction and removal won't happen, that "letter" - better named an excretion of a sick and dysfunctional mind - should be enough to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Schiff had evidence?

 

[colfax_m]

You guys are really worried about the truth coming out, aren’t you?

No, it's about due process. The house was in too big a hurry to afford the WH any due process, don't cry when they suffer the consequences of that haste and can't prove their case. The senate is not the place to continue the house investigation.

.

Due process? Baloney. Trump received more due process than he deserved.

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

 

[basquebromance]

Rep Jason Crow (D-Colorado) got a 20 second standing ovation when he announced he was gonna vote to impeach Trump!

 

[OKTexas]

No, it's about due process. The house was in too big a hurry to afford the WH any due process, don't cry when they suffer the consequences of that haste and can't prove their case. The senate is not the place to continue the house investigation.

.

Due process? Baloney. Trump received more due process than he deserved.

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[colfax_m]

Due process? Baloney. Trump received more due process than he deserved.

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

 

[bripat9643]

Hey dumbass, the House was NOT a trial, the Senate is!!!!

That's right. It's not an investigative body.

No new witnesses, asshole.

 

[OKTexas]

Your opinion is irrelevant. One person subpoenaed by the house just went to the court to ask for guidance, the house withdrew the subpoena. The courts are there to resolve differences between the executive and legislative branches, the house refused to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Now they want to impeach the president for their laziness. Give me a ******* break.

.

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

 

[The Original Tree]

Hey dumbass, the House was NOT a trial, the Senate is!!!!

The trial is over. The Senate acts as the jury and only reviews the lack of evidence the dumbasses in The a House failed to produce.

And I cannot say this enough.

**** Chuck Schummer!

 

[colfax_m]

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

 

[berg80]

Schumer is planning on asking for a vote on whether the 4 major witnesses who Trump is blocking should testify during the Senate trial. He wants to hold Repubs accountable for being complicit in McTreason and Trump's scheme to obstruct the testimony of witnesses people who will either provide damning evidence or be forced to perjure themselves.

 

[OKTexas]

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.

.

Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.

What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?

 

[AntonToo]

Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

Any of the witnesses that Nadler wouldn't allow to 'testify' while this mess was being heard in the House.

For example?

Who should be on that stand if not Mulveney who held up the aid on Trump's orders, or Juliani who was SMACK MIDDLE OF THE ENTIRE THING and who Trump referred EVERYONE to deal with including the President of Ukraine?

You want to get to the truth you ask the people involved, not put up sideshow about people who had nothing to do with real-time events this whole thing is about.

Sounds like something the democrats should have done.

You mean like this?

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D024.pdf

MR. GOLDMAN: This is the deposition of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Mr. Mulvaney was subpoenaed to appear at 9:00 a.m.
It is 9:07 a.m. He is not here.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.

.

Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.

What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?

What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.

.

 

[colfax_m]

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.

.

Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.

What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?

What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.

.

Implicit in their authority to legislate and to impeach the president.

Do you think they have the power to impeach a president but not investigate him? That would not be rational.

 

[OKTexas]

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

Why not?

shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.

.

Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.

What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?

What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.

.

Implicit in their authority to legislate and to impeach the president.

Do you think they have the power to impeach a president but not investigate him? That would not be rational.

Really, the 10th amendment says there are no implied powers in the Constitution, only those enumerated apply.

.