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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

The Republiscum were in the same "closet" interviewing the same witnesses so it was more than fair.

No, they weren’t.

Yes they were, all 48 of them!

The Closed-Door Impeachment

 

[Nostra]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.

Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying ******* moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Nothing was confirmed stop lying

Nothing was confirmed all was hearsay and reading the presidents mind
In other words if I was president what would he do?

 

[lantern2814]

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.

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?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually get some evidence of your crap next time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION. (A) the results of an election, once certified, are recorded forever; and (B) if a POTUS is removed it is his own VP who succeeds to the throne, not some other candidate from any election.

What the democrats tried is the example of stealing the election by trying to remove the winner.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

The money / military aid in question was delivered to Ukraine without them having to do anything....

Republicans need to stop saying such stupid ******* nonsense.

Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.

Trump did not start telling Sondland "no-quid-pro-quo!!! I want nothing from Zelensky!!!" untill well after WhiteHouse already had whistleblower complaint and Congress opened investigations.

Hopefully larger font helps, because simply repeating over and over over and over is not cutting it.

And telling the actual truth about your bullshit causes you to throw a tantrum and whine like the good stupid Dim boot licker you are. Sorry moron you’ve lost again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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?

All McConnell has to do is tell the Chief Justice to convene the court do a roll call and dismiss the charges

 

[Olde Europe]

Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided
Schumer Might Consider Court Battle Over Impeachment Witnesses That House Avoided

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Thursday left the door open to waiting for courts to enforce subpoenas of witnesses for a Senate impeachment trial if need be.

His comments to reporters a day after the House took its historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump came as he is publicly feuding with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-KY) over whether the Senate should to agree to call witnesses in the first place.

Yep.

Pelosi knows, of course, more about how this is going to play out than this entire board combined.

There is important precedent to consider, like, for instance, Lott and Dashle working out the rules adopted by 100 Senators for Clinton's trial. That gave the trial at least some non-partisan truth-seeking allure. Of course, McConnell can push through the rules for this trial with just 51 Senators, but in so doing he will diminish whatever will emerge from it.

Moreover, the minority leader can make this whole thing far more arduous and contentious that it need be, dirty laundry aired, votes called for a myriad of witnesses and documents, and what not. Pelosi, with very limited room to maneuver, appears to be playing into that. McConnell wants a clean-cut acquittal, and fast. In order to get that, he will have to accommodate the other side of the isle, and, maybe, three or four moderates on his own side he needs for a majority.

At the very least, it's going to be interesting to watch. I would guess, the "Stick it to them" howlers and other Trumpletons will be disappointed.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

The money / military aid in question was delivered to Ukraine without them having to do anything....

Republicans need to stop saying such stupid ******* nonsense.

Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.

Trump did not start telling Sondland "no-quid-pro-quo!!! I want nothing from Zelensky!!!" untill well after WhiteHouse already had whistleblower complaint and Congress opened investigations.

Hopefully larger font helps, because simply repeating over and over over and over is not cutting it.

And telling the actual truth about your bullshit causes you to throw a tantrum and whine like the good stupid Dim boot licker you are. Sorry moron you’ve lost again.

good job refuting nothing at all

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

It's in the ******* constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

Lying ******* moron, it is not in the Constitution.

We need to know about who he talked too and what they know

LOL

Actually, you don't get to know shit beyond what's already been released.

So my elected officials know who he talked to so they can make a statement

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

Because it's sondland who created the confusion

 

[berg80]

There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.

Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying ******* moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Nothing was confirmed stop lying

Nothing was confirmed all was hearsay and reading the presidents mind
In other words if I was president what would he do?

That is a delusional reading of the facts in evidence.

 

[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?

"Under oath" wouldn't mean diddly. This worm has already testified under oath that he used pseudonyms like "John Miller" and "John Baron", and then afterward, denied what he just affirmed under oath. "Oath" means nothing to a moron who makes up his own reality on the spot.

"Under oath" wouldn't mean diddly. This worm has already testified under oath that he used pseudonyms like "John Miller" and "John Baron", and then afterward, denied what he just affirmed under oath. "Oath" means nothing to a moron who makes up his own reality on the spot.

I agree. Trump will lie under oath and millions of Americans will take notice; he is already bleeding support among Evangelicals:

"Trump Should Be Removed from Office
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was."

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

Again, who said she's never going to send them?

And he's impeached already. Impeachment is not predicated upon the House sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever??

Not me.

What I said was if she doesn't send them over there is no impeachment. The Constitution is clear on this. "The Senate SHALL TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS". No trial, no impeachment.

Nazi is about to void her own Schitt Show.

"No trial, no impeachment."

^^^ Dumbfuck is as dumbfuck does

 

[AntonToo]

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.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

Because it's sondland who created the confusion

You don't want Jiuliani to vindicate Trump and embarass Democrats' baseless impeachment...because Sondland created confusion?

WTF?

Why don't you just say the ony ******* thing that makes sense here - Jiuliani is the foremost witness in this case and ABSOLUTELY needs to come before the congress and testify. There is only one guy that knows more about what happened than him, and thats Trump himself.

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually get some evidence of your crap next time.

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever deranged.

 

[AntonToo]

I think it was a huge mistake for the Democrats to base the whole impeachment only on the Ukraine thing.

There are weird things going on with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Trump has investments in both, although possibly more in Turkey.
Donald Trump’s Huge Conflict of Interest in Turkey

Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

What supposedly happened is Kushner gave the green light to kill Khashoggi, and Turkish intelligence intercepted the conversation.
REPORT: Kushner OK'd Khashoggi Arrest, Turkey Heard Call & Blackmailed Trump over Syrian Troops

So then Trump is blackmailed to not only pull the troops out of Syria, but Trump also refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

So while in this case Trump is being blackmailed and not the other way around, it is very important that his conflicts of interest are revealed, meaning specifically his business transactions. These business dealings can dictate his foreign policy and I believe could be subject to impeachment.

And yes, this means his Russia dealings as well.

No doubt there is much to this, but Trump got so much shady side-shit going on it's tough to keep up. Congress has their hands full explaining just the fairly striaght forward Ukranian deal.

It needs to be narrow and clear otherwise people just tune out.

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

All McConnell has to do is tell the Chief Justice to convene the court do a roll call and dismiss the charges

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

 

[Olde Europe]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

 

[lantern2814]

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?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually g
et some evidence of your crap next time.

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever deranged.

Link to where Pisslosi has any power over the Senate? Oh there isn't one. Showing yourself to be an uneducated litrle yellow coward as always. Put up or STFU. GFY.