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

[M14 Shooter]

Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial

Given the actions of the Democrats in the house - expecially regarding allowable witnesses and questions asked of same - why should the GOP give a hoot in hell what Schumer wants for the senate trial?

 

[Nostra]

It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.

.

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.

If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.

Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.

Schifferbrains being in a hurry doesn’t constitute obstruction of Congress by Trump.

 

[hadit]

1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

 

[Olde Europe]

Sooooooo...

The Democrats stage a sham trial in the House, with a cornucopia of slanders and no opportunity to rebut anything effectively, and NOW they want a REAL trial?

Un.

Fucking.

Believable.

McConnell will shove it right up their collective, figurative ASS! And he should.

There is no trial in the House, dummy, merely an endeavor to collect the evidence and, finally, to vote in the full House on whether or not it suffices to start a trial in the Senate. Also, Republican members of the respective Committees were present and given equal time to question the witnesses, and even call witnesses with pertinent knowledge.

Congratulation, you are Trumpleton #499 to regurgitate the same trite pap (sorry, #500 would have come with a new fridge). But we note your obsession with "Fucking" and "ASS" seeping out, uncontrollably.

 

[hadit]

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.

Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.

These are government officials. Testifying before the people's representatives is part of their duty to the American people. It's not harassment to answer questions about their actions as servants to the people.

If the Senate truly wants their testimony, they know how to get it, and it may mean that the democrats have to stay in session six days a week through campaign season. More likely, the democrats will capitulate and vote to make it go away so they can campaign.

 

[MAGAman]

You have evidence now? Lol

Apparently some people believe anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath,” Representative Val B. Demings, Democrat of Florida, said on Friday.
At the start of the trial, the Constitution requires the senators to take an oath.

Which article and section is this requirement?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

This didn't once bother the Democrats in the house, so...

 

[M14 Shooter]

3 years later and "Obstruction of Hillary" is STILL not a crime

No... but it carriers a death sentence.

 

[colfax_m]

There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

 

[dannyboys]

Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.

which was a partisan pissin' match

so i'd expect nothing less this time 'round

~S~

Schumer is asking for all the pertinent evidence to be presented. What's wrong with that?

Schumer can shove his 'requests' up his ass.
How did Schiff treat Nunes? How did Nadler treat Collins?
Now all of a sudden Schumer wants to have "civilized" talks with the people they despise????????

 

[M14 Shooter]

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

 

[colfax_m]

Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?

What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?

Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.

Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.

These are government officials. Testifying before the people's representatives is part of their duty to the American people. It's not harassment to answer questions about their actions as servants to the people.

If the Senate truly wants their testimony, they know how to get it, and it may mean that the democrats have to stay in session six days a week through campaign season. More likely, the democrats will capitulate and vote to make it go away so they can campaign.

They want testimony from a handful of people that were blocked. It won't take more than a few days to hear their stories.

 

[hadit]

And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.

The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

We don't know, because they were prevented. See how that works? Are you going to pretend the Republicans were not shut down in their questioning and were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wanted?

 

[colfax_m]

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?

Hunter Biden doesn't know anything about Trump's little Ukrainian drug deal. The whistleblower doesn't have any direct knowledge, as we've all been told over and over again.

 

[colfax_m]

One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

We don't know, because they were prevented. See how that works? Are you going to pretend the Republicans were not shut down in their questioning and were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wanted?

They weren't allowed to call witnesses without knowledge of the events.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They want testimony from a handful of people that were blocked. It won't take more than a few days to hear their stories.

Do you suppose the Dems should have thought of this before they blocked testimony from witnesses the Republicans wanted to question in the impeachment "inquiry"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
Hunter Biden doesn't know anything about Tru p's little Ukrainian drug deal. The whistleblower doesn't have any direct knowledge, as we've all been told over and over again.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

 

[mudwhistle]

Good, then we should get testimony from Biden about his threat to cut funding unless the Ukrainians stop investigating his crackhead son.

Repubs know better than to have Old Joe testify. The last thing in the world McTreason and Lindsey want is for The Following to have to face the truth about the Biden farce. Dems have rightly kept that whole irrelevant sideshow from being injected in to the House inquiry in order to keep the focus on the matter at hand..........Trump's actions.

Which actions?
Seems you liberals feel that the president doesn't have the right to investigate wrongdoing by Democrats.

Apparently you feel Democrats are above the law.

Fact is....Democrats asked Ukraine to help them find dirt on Trump so they could get Hillary into the White House.

Fact is.....numerous Democrats have been involved in money-laundering schemes involving foreign aide.

Fact is....many of them feel Trump is going to put a bunch of them in prison for a very long time.

 

[colfax_m]

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
Hunter Biden doesn't know anything about Tru p's little Ukrainian drug deal. The whistleblower doesn't have any direct knowledge, as we've all been told over and over again.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.