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

[bripat9643]

The witnesses from the Democrat investigation and no new witnesses

Who says the House has to call every witness they wan for the Trial??

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

They don’t have to call witnesses.

They will if they’re interested in the truth

If there was true why didn't the democrats find it? Why are democrats dependent on the Republicans to find what they couldn't? 3 years now and nothing impeachable

Why should we wait years to find out the truth of this matter?

We already know the truth.

 

[lantern2814]

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

Get over 2016 when you LOST fair and square. YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT!

WRONG CLINTON U DUMBASS -

You stupid fuckwad. I never mentioned a Clinton. Merely referenced your idiotic MOVE ON statement. Damn you never got out of grade school did you you moron?

 

[bripat9643]

When you introduce new witnesses it is investigating

Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last time around.

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

Bill Clinton actually lost his law licenses for his crime

Stick to the topic chief.

Republicans had no problem requesting witnesses during impeachment trial that weren't called during the hearing last time around.

Republicans are hypocrites and afraid of the truth.

I don't recall. Can you name those witnesses? Furthermore, the Dims got to call all the witnesses the wanted in the House inquiry.

 

[Faun]

Guess he's not gonna practice law again, huh?

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

LOLOL

Again, no one actually said that wasn't a crime. You're an idiot for asking why he lost his law license if it wasn't a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

You only see biden as a political candidate rather than a former VP who abused his office

It doesn't matter. Under no circumstance can Trump break the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. Even if Trump suspected Biden committed a crime, he should have had his own Justice Department investigate Biden, not a foreign national. It involved a political rival. It's illegal and a threat to national security to delegate that job to a foreign nation.

As I have pointed out 100 times, the term "solicit" implies something illegal. So you're saying it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help because it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help.

There's no law that says the government can't investigate political candidates if they have broken the law. They don't get a "get out of jail free" card because they filed to run for office.

If your claims are true, then why didn't the House Dims file a charge on that issue? Apparently, even they know you're full of shit.

I'm saying it's illegal to solicit a foreign national because the law says it's illegal to solicit a foreign national.

Again, the term "solicit" implies a law was broken.

It's illegal to hire foreign nationals to work on political campaigns. Trump didn't do that, dumbass.

Lying ******* moron, a law was broken. It's illegal to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

ROFL! Are you saying Biden gets a "get out of jail free" card just because he filed to run for office?

Again, you know what I've told you about using the term "solicit."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well is what Clinton did wasn't a crime why did he lose his law licenses?

Who said lying under oath isn't a crime?? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

No one said it was but it was an actual crime he committed

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

LOLOL

Again, no one actually said that wasn't a crime. You're an idiot for asking why he lost his law license if it wasn't a crime.

I wasn't asking dumbass

 

[Siete]

If no one said it, why are you asking if it "wasn't a crime?"

Don't like to have actual crimes pointed out move on

Clintons crime was last CENTURY

YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT

Get over 2016 when you LOST fair and square. YOU MOVE ON ASSHAT!

WRONG CLINTON U DUMBASS -

You stupid fuckwad. I never mentioned a Clinton. Merely referenced your idiotic MOVE ON statement. Damn you never got out of grade school did you you moron?

lost in 2016 - to who ?

gfy princess

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't matter. Under no circumstance can Trump break the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. Even if Trump suspected Biden committed a crime, he should have had his own Justice Department investigate Biden, not a foreign national. It involved a political rival. It's illegal and a threat to national security to delegate that job to a foreign nation.

As I have pointed out 100 times, the term "solicit" implies something illegal. So you're saying it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help because it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help.

There's no law that says the government can't investigate political candidates if they have broken the law. They don't get a "get out of jail free" card because they filed to run for office.

If your claims are true, then why didn't the House Dims file a charge on that issue? Apparently, even they know you're full of shit.

I'm saying it's illegal to solicit a foreign national because the law says it's illegal to solicit a foreign national.

Again, the term "solicit" implies a law was broken.

It's illegal to hire foreign nationals to work on political campaigns. Trump didn't do that, dumbass.

Lying ******* moron, a law was broken. It's illegal to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

ROFL! Are you saying Biden gets a "get out of jail free" card just because he filed to run for office?

Again, you know what I've told you about using the term "solicit."

according to Democrats any democrat gets a get out of jail free card.

 

[Faun]

As far as the treaty, YOU posted provisions in it must be followed. And the provision for making requests must come from our Attorney General, not the president. And they must be made to their Minister of Justice, not their president. And requests must be made on ongoing investigations, not opening up new ones.

ROFL! Now you're trying to claim (without actually claiming it) than not going by the procedure in the treaty is a crime. The fact is they must be followed only if you want the cooperation of the signers to the treaty. It doesn't make not following the procedure a crime, you ******* douchebag.

The existence of the treaty shows that it's not illegal to ask a foreign government for help in prosecuting American criminals.

In your douchebag fashion, you come down on both wrong sides of that issue.

LOLOL

You poor, deranged, lying ******* moron... YOU say I said it's a crime to not adhere to the treaty -- I never said that. I said he's not covered by the treaty because he didn't use it, but instead, went directly to the president of Ukraine.

Yeah, I know douchebag. You tried your usual shtick of implying that it was illegal not to follow the procedure without actually saying that:

As far as the treaty, YOU posted provisions in it must be followed. And the provision for making requests must come from our Attorney General, not the president.​

"Not covered by the treaty" is just another way of implying that not following the procedure is illegal.

If it's not illegal, then what's the point of saying what you posted?

Who do you think you're fooling?

No, it's not, ya lying ******* mpron. Not following the treaty means he wasn't using the treaty.

And what I said was illegal was soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. I never said not following the treaty is a crime.

I know you didn't say exactly those words, you ******* douchebag, but that's what you implied without actually saying so. Why even mention he didn't follow the procedure mentioned in the treaty if it has no legal consequences? Do you imagine everyone is as stupid as you?

Again, the term "soliciting" implies a crime was committed. So what your saying is that it's a crime to request help from a foreign government because it's a crime to request help from a foreign government. You're begging the question.

The treaty shows that it's not illegal to request help from a foreign national to investigate an American because he's running for office. There is no such law, moron.

I implied no such thing. Sadly, you only thought I did because you're a lying ******* moron.

And the word "solicit" simply means to ask for something. Had I said it's illegal for Trump to ask a foreign national to investigate a political rival, his doing so would still be as illegal.

And illegal it is. There is no treaty that allows him to do that.

 

[Faun]

Its a limited analogy. They’re more than the jury since apparently the Senate has to agree what witnesses will be called. This is a decision typically left to the prosecutor and defense, not the jury.

The witnesses from the Democrat investigation and no new witnesses

Who says the House has to call every witness they wan for the Trial??

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

Because it's supposed to be a trial. Witnesses are generally called in trials.

It's not a criminal trial, moron. Why would you need to call a witness when his testimony has already been observed?

Because that's the purpose of a trial. For the Senate to mull over evidence; some of which may not have been presented during the hearing.

 

[Faun]

It doesn't matter. Under no circumstance can Trump break the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. Even if Trump suspected Biden committed a crime, he should have had his own Justice Department investigate Biden, not a foreign national. It involved a political rival. It's illegal and a threat to national security to delegate that job to a foreign nation.

As I have pointed out 100 times, the term "solicit" implies something illegal. So you're saying it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help because it's illegal to ask a foreign government for help.

There's no law that says the government can't investigate political candidates if they have broken the law. They don't get a "get out of jail free" card because they filed to run for office.

If your claims are true, then why didn't the House Dims file a charge on that issue? Apparently, even they know you're full of shit.

I'm saying it's illegal to solicit a foreign national because the law says it's illegal to solicit a foreign national.

Again, the term "solicit" implies a law was broken.

It's illegal to hire foreign nationals to work on political campaigns. Trump didn't do that, dumbass.

Lying ******* moron, a law was broken. It's illegal to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

ROFL! Are you saying Biden gets a "get out of jail free" card just because he filed to run for office?

Again, you know what I've told you about using the term "solicit."

LOL

Never said that, lying ******* moron. In fact, I said the opposite.

 

[Faun]

For those who want to take a break and have a good laugh... enjoy...

 

[colfax_m]

Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last time around.

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

I just didn't follow your poor writing.

Last time, Dims got to call all the witnesses they wanted during the House inquiry. You don't help your case by citing the Clinton impeachment.

There's nothing wrong with my writing. You just have a hard time with comprehension.

Sure there is. You gave no hints about what the term "last time" meant.

Did you not realize the topic was impeachment?

 

[Nostra]

It was an analogy, Colfax! Trump is invoking his Executive Privilege rights. You have no more right to impeach him for that then a prosecutor has to bring charges against a citizen for invoking any of THEIR rights!

He's not invoking executive privilege either. He's not doing anything other than crumpling them up and throwing them in the shredder.

Answer me one question please.
What do you think would happen to you if your ignored a subpoena?

He ignored nothing. He challenged them in court, per our Constitution. Just because Dimwingere in a hurry to vote on their coup doesn't mean he is obstructing Congress.

Moron.

Even if Trump is within he legal right to prevent witness testimony (which he isn't), he is still preventing information from being added to the record for the Senate trial. Information he implies exonerates him by stating he did nothing wrong. If that's true, why not let the witnesses testify?

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Schifferbrains and Nazi Pelousy couldn't wait for court rulings. That's on them, not Trump.

The Senate is the jury. The House needs to present the case it has..........which is nothing. Jurors don't call witnesses, Dummy.

They not just the trial's jurors, they're also the trial's lawyers, presenting their case for or against the impeachment. Lawyers call witnesses.

Nope, fuckwit. The House presents the case.

 

[Nostra]

Now you are repeating yourself

Rudy can investigate criminal activity

For what purpose other than to benefit his client?

To serve justice

Biden is dirty and all for the sake of providing for his deadbeat son

Your hollow claims that Biden is dirty are unproven.

And even if he was, that doesn't give a private attorney the legal authority to subvert the law to solicit a foreign leader to investigate his client's political rivals.

they accusations of wrongdoing

thats how all criminal prosecutions begin

The accusations need to be credible. You don’t get to make up accusations as a false pretense.

Irony

 

[bripat9643]

When was "last time," asshole?

Bill Clinton. Good lord, are you that stupid to not know this?

I just didn't follow your poor writing.

Last time, Dims got to call all the witnesses they wanted during the House inquiry. You don't help your case by citing the Clinton impeachment.

There's nothing wrong with my writing. You just have a hard time with comprehension.

Sure there is. You gave no hints about what the term "last time" meant.

Did you not realize the topic was impeachment?

You assume too much. "The last time" doesn't give any indication about what you're referring to.

 

[georgephillip]

Grinch Trump was stonewalling all subpoena requests for individuals and documents in hopes of running out the clock before next November. Do you suppose that has anything to do with statute of limitations restrictions over his pending Russian collusion/obstruction charges?

Michael Cohen: "Individual 1 is Donald J. Trump"

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Get back to me when you elect a POTUS who's read the Constitution.
All the times Trump said the constitution let's him do whatever he wants

It definitely allows him to pursue Congressional demands all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do you disagree?

It definitely allows him to pursue Congressional demands all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do you disagree?

There's no Constitutional provision for refusing ALL congressional requests for documents AND individuals relating to a impeachment proceeding.

House Judiciary Committee passes articles of impeachment against Trump - WQOW

The FISA Court just DESTROYED this faux argument by exposing the fact that the Dems' coup attempts / investigations from day 1 have been ILLEGAL based on crimes perpetrated by the Obama administration's DOJ and FBI.

The US IG made it clear the FBI knowingly used BS propaganda from a known in-reliable source - a foreign spy working with Russians, withheld the fact that Carter Page was an official govt information source reporting on the Russians - one of 17 FISA Court abuses - to legally spy on Trump & his team based on a false manufactured accusation / story!

Jonathon Gruber must be so proud of you!

he FISA Court just DESTROYED this faux argument by exposing the fact that the Dems' coup attempts / investigations from day 1 have been ILLEGAL based on crimes perpetrated by the Obama administration's DOJ and FBI.

Is this the report you're referring to?
If so, link to pages supporting your allegations:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

"Background The Department of Justice (Department) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) undertook this review to examine certain actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department during an FBI investigation opened on July 31, 2016, known as 'Crossfire Hurricane,' into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

 

[edthecynic]

The DEM led House of Representatives holding their inquiry behind closed doors without a chance for their witnesses to be cross examined.

LIAR!
The Republiscum had EQUAL time to cross examine EVERY witness.
When the worthless lying scum Right tell such obvious lies they expose the fact that they themselves KNOW they are WRONG!

No they didn’t.

Yes they did, and YOU know it, just read the online transcripts and you can see EVERY lying Republiscum had the exact same time to question each witness as the Dems.

Like I said when the worthless lying scum Right tell such obvious lies they expose the fact that they themselves KNOW they are WRONG!

Dems interviewing gov officials in a closet is not exactly a fair process.
Hillary lost, get over it or move to your NewSSR.

Were Republicans in that closet as well?

Yes, 48 of them!

 

[hadit]

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

The House could have compelled the testimony. It's not on the Senate to make up for their failings.

The House would get their testimony in a few years. The Senate has an obligation to seek the truth. They’re going to help cover for Trump instead.

Remember 2000? Things can be fast tracked in the courts. And the Senate's job is to judge the House's case, not look for ways to get guilty.

Only when both parties agree to fast track it. Do you think Trump will agree to fast track this case?

Why do both parties have to agree? A judge can decide to hear a case if he wants to. He's in control of his court. The SC, which is where it would end up anywhere, is perfectly capable of hearing it quickly. Trump could delay only as long as the judge or justices agree he could.

 

[edthecynic]

LIAR!
The Republiscum had EQUAL time to cross examine EVERY witness.
When the worthless lying scum Right tell such obvious lies they expose the fact that they themselves KNOW they are WRONG!

No they didn’t.

Yes they did, and YOU know it, just read the online transcripts and you can see EVERY lying Republiscum had the exact same time to question each witness as the Dems.

Like I said when the worthless lying scum Right tell such obvious lies they expose the fact that they themselves KNOW they are WRONG!

Dems interviewing gov officials in a closet is not exactly a fair process.
Hillary lost, get over it or move to your NewSSR.

Were Republicans in that closet as well?

No

LIAR!
48 were.