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

[Mindful]

Apparently Nancy Piglosi has a few more tricks up her sleeve. She might actually withhold the articles and not send it up to the Senate until McConnel agrees to hold a full trial and call all the witnesses in the admin.

Is she quite right in the head?

 

[Faun]

Nothing to stop Democrats when they have the Executive and Legislative branches.

Or the republicans.

They had the chance and didn't do it.

Gee, imagine that.

Living by the rules.

You fuckers should try it sometime.

LOL

I like how you think blocking a president from filling a vacancy for nearly a year is "living by the rules."

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

Can't be since Biden never blocked any president for nearly a year to fill a vacancy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Or the republicans.

They had the chance and didn't do it.

Gee, imagine that.

Living by the rules.

You fuckers should try it sometime.

LOL

I like how you think blocking a president from filling a vacancy for nearly a year is "living by the rules."

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

Can't be since Biden never blocked any president for nearly a year to fill a vacancy.

No, he just suggested it.

McConnell simply picked up on it.

Tough when the other side holds the cards and can use the rules to tell you to go **** yourself.

 

[Faun]

They had the chance and didn't do it.

Gee, imagine that.

Living by the rules.

You fuckers should try it sometime.

LOL

I like how you think blocking a president from filling a vacancy for nearly a year is "living by the rules."

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

Can't be since Biden never blocked any president for nearly a year to fill a vacancy.

No, he just suggested it.

McConnell simply picked up on it.

Tough when the other side holds the cards and can use the rules to tell you to go **** yourself.

LOL

Imbecile, he didn't even suggest it.

You should phone-a-friend ... you need help.

 

[Roudy]

Apparently Nancy Piglosi has a few more tricks up her sleeve. She might actually withhold the articles and not send it up to the Senate until McConnel agrees to hold a full trial and call all the witnesses in the admin.

Is she quite right in the head?

She has already calculated that based on the potential candidates out there, Trump will win in a humiliating landslide victory next November. And rightly so. At that point Ruth Bader Ginsberg will retire and the Left's identity politics and communist agenda will get flushed down the toilet.

This is "last resort" or "in case of emergency, break glass" politics the Dems are engaging in.

 

[Mindful]

What have the grandkids got to do with it?

 

[keepitreal]

Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

Where have you ever seen a trial rely on falsified documents
presented to a judge by an intelligence agency?

 

[Mac-7]

Unfortunately for you voting is the only option you have

But it’s not the only option available to the country.

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nows it's time for the trial.

Maybe, maybe not.

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

I could care less. What makes you think that would bother me?

You're already crapping in your own panties.

No not really. you leftist got goated into the impeachment you went after the brass ring and fellI'm laughing about you little kids playing on the playground of politics.
So nancy's mad and taking her impeachment and going home because the Republicans will not allow her to have her way?

 

[berg80]

Nothing to stop Democrats when they have the Executive and Legislative branches.

Or the republicans.

They had the chance and didn't do it.

Gee, imagine that.

Living by the rules.

You fuckers should try it sometime.

LOL

I like how you think blocking a president from filling a vacancy for nearly a year is "living by the rules."

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

Well, as usual, you'd be wrong.

 

[berg80]

Maybe, maybe not.

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

I could care less. What makes you think that would bother me?

You're already crapping in your own panties.

No not really. you leftist got goated into the impeachment you went after the brass ring and fellI'm laughing about you little kids playing on the playground of politics.
So nancy's mad and taking her impeachment and going home because the Republicans will not allow her to have her way?

Pelosi, acting on behalf of the American people and out of respect for the Constitution, will do all she can to keep McTreason from doing what he does best...............shitting on the founders and subverting the will of the majority of Americans who want witness testimony during the Senate trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

I could care less. What makes you think that would bother me?

You're already crapping in your own panties.

No not really. you leftist got goated into the impeachment you went after the brass ring and fellI'm laughing about you little kids playing on the playground of politics.
So nancy's mad and taking her impeachment and going home because the Republicans will not allow her to have her way?

Pelosi, acting on behalf of the American people and out of respect for the Constitution, will do all she can to keep McTreason from doing what he does best...............shitting on the founders and subverting the will of the majority of Americans who want witness testimony during the Senate trial.

San *** man is not acting on behalf of the American people. She's acting on behalf of traitors hell bent on destroying the country. Time to start the war and end this crazy shit

 

[georgephillip]

Putin Smiles. Good work Comrade. Today is Glorious Day for Mother Russia.

Nice attempt to cherry pick and distort the Weismann-Mueller report that stated NO collusion with the Russians was found ...

That wasn't the conclusion that lifelong Republican fixer Bob Mueller came to: he said he found no proof of collusion between elements of the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Possibly he reached this conclusion because he didn't investigate Trump's financial history with rich FSU gangsters?

"For Donald Trump, there was the purchase of the $12.6 million Scottish estate and the $79.7 million for golf courses in the United Kingdom, not to mention the $16.2 million for the Northern Virginia Winery. All in cash.

"For Michael Cohen, it was the lucrative day in 2014 when he sold four Manhattan buildings for $32 million—three times what he’d paid for them less than three years before."

If Trump Is Laundering Russian Money, Here’s How It Works

Putin Smiles. Good work Comrade. Today is Glorious Day for Mother Russia.

How Putin's oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns

Trump is 'owned by Putin' and has been 'laundering money' for Russians, claims MSNBC's Donny Deutsch

"Reaction and analysis from Rep. Matt Gaetz and 'Swamp Wars' author Jeffrey Lord.

"President Trump is a Russian asset who has laundered money for Vladimir Putin for decades in order to save his struggling casinos, MSNBC's Donny Deutsch claimed Thursday.

"'This is all about failed casinos,' the New York City advertising executive said on 'Morning Joe.' '[Trump] is owned by Putin because he’s been laundering money, Russian money, for the last 20, 30 years. He’s owned by them.'

"'You talk to any banker in New York, any business person in New York, any real estate person … we have a president that’s selling out our military, that’s costing lives, because he is owned by our geopolitical enemy,' he continued.

"'Because he’s been laundering money for him as a criminal organization for the last 30 years.'"

 

[georgephillip]

Buck up, snowflakes. The Democrats - Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Clinesmith, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Schiff, and Nadler - will not get dragged before the Senate to testify and answer for their crimes in a 'reckoning' long overdue.

How about Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo (all first-hand fact witnesses) testify in the Senate, Twinkie?

Better yet, how 'bout the ***** Grabber in Chief mans up and testifies under oath before the American people?

 

[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.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

 

[hadit]

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

Claiming that a vote to aquit has nothing to do with the rule of law is foolishness to the extreme.

Republicans have demonstrated that they have little interest in revealing the truth. This isn’t about rule of law. It’s about keeping us in the dark.

Democrats failed to produce a strong case. That's on them. If they couldn't do it, they could have just dropped it.

This is the attitude I find troubling. I always thought it was Congress’s job to oversee the president. It turns out that just is the duty of Democrats. Republicans have decided their duty is to protect the president.

And you wonder why this feels partisan?

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions. Basically, you are saying that anyone who condemns the democrats' tactics are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the rule of law or basic fairness. Such is not a good thing.

You also have been saying in essence that the president should not be able to defend himself, as you have complained when he took legal means to do so.

Yes this does feel very partisan, as the democrats have rammed it through with little regard for the seriousness of what they were doing.

 

[hadit]

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes it is which does not include the jury doing further investigations for the house.

Moron, it does include witnesses.

And as has been pointed out to you already, you're just too dense to comprehend.... the next phase is a trial, not an investigation.

And your biggest problem with that is who is in charge of the trial.

 

[hadit]

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

I could care less. What makes you think that would bother me?

You're already crapping in your own panties.

No not really. you leftist got goated into the impeachment you went after the brass ring and fellI'm laughing about you little kids playing on the playground of politics.
So nancy's mad and taking her impeachment and going home because the Republicans will not allow her to have her way?

Pelosi, acting on behalf of the American people and out of respect for the Constitution, will do all she can to keep McTreason from doing what he does best...............shitting on the founders and subverting the will of the majority of Americans who want witness testimony during the Senate trial.

The House had their chance.

 

[berg80]

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions.

The opposite is true. The House inquiry was replete with first hand testimony. The facts those 17 witnesses testified to are not in dispute. There is more corroborating testimony that has not been heard due to Trump's obstruction. Dems want it to be placed in evidence............Repubs do not.

1. Trump directed the OMB to put a hold on military aid to Ukraine.
Pentagon official testifies White House directed freeze on aid to Ukraine
2. Members of the U.S. diplomatic corps for Ukraine were told to work with Slimy Rudy to extract the announcement of an investigation in to the Biden's for Baby Donald's personal political benefit.
Testimony and texts: How the Trump-Ukraine allegations fit together in a timeline
3. Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was removed from her position after a smear campaign was launched against her because she was an obstacle to the Trump/Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine.
Giuliani brags about forcing out Trump's Ukraine ambassador
4. The transcript of the Trump/Zelensky call, which was attempted to be hidden in a code level secret server, is documentary evidence of Trump's efforts to extort Ukraine.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's flawed 'read the transcript' defense