Trump's people won't defend him

[daveman]

Trump's people? You mean the people of the United States of America? The President doesn't need a defense. The burden of proof is on the do nothing democrat congress which seems reluctant to go through the procedure they started.

Trump wants people to argue for him. It's an ego thing.

Argue for him? The situation is beyond ego. Democrats started it but they seem reluctant to go through with it. Nancy won't even face a friendly media.

With Trump, nothing is beyond his ego. Why do you think it is unreasonable for Pelosi to ask for a fair trial?

Pelosi doesn't want a fair trial. She wants her kangaroo court rubber-stamped.

And so do you.

A fair trial in the Senate would be nice. Senators should honor their oaths to deliver impartial justice.

If Donald Trump had any evidence to defend himself he would have already presented it.

You really don't know anything about this. You should perhaps stop.

 

[Denizen]

Trump wants people to argue for him. It's an ego thing.

Argue for him? The situation is beyond ego. Democrats started it but they seem reluctant to go through with it. Nancy won't even face a friendly media.

With Trump, nothing is beyond his ego. Why do you think it is unreasonable for Pelosi to ask for a fair trial?

Pelosi doesn't want a fair trial. She wants her kangaroo court rubber-stamped.

And so do you.

A fair trial in the Senate would be nice. Senators should honor their oaths to deliver impartial justice.

If Donald Trump had any evidence to defend himself he would have already presented it.

You really don't know anything about this. You should perhaps stop.

Your pain is palpable. I don't like to cause grown men to cry.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The President has not been accused of any crime so neither defense nor trial are needed.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trump's people? You mean the people of the United States of America? The President doesn't need a defense. The burden of proof is on the do nothing democrat congress which seems reluctant to go through the procedure they started.

Trump wants people to argue for him. It's an ego thing.

Argue for him? The situation is beyond ego. Democrats started it but they seem reluctant to go through with it. Nancy won't even face a friendly media.

With Trump, nothing is beyond his ego. Why do you think it is unreasonable for Pelosi to ask for a fair trial?

Pelosi doesn't want a fair trial. She wants her kangaroo court rubber-stamped.

And so do you.

A fair trial in the Senate would be nice. Senators should honor their oaths to deliver impartial justice.

If Donald Trump had any evidence to defend himself he would have already presented it.

So a far trial in Congress because the Stupid liberal ***** didnt make it one and kept the Republicans out, now you want a "fair" trial in the Senate but Republican Mitch wont allow it, you are such a two face traitor...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

Schiff obviously lied to Congress. If who the whistleblower is, he sure as **** does and he sure as **** talked to the whistleblower.

The fact that the House voted to impeach without the material witness testifying is absolutely banana republic type shit.

Just unfucking real.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Witnesses are never called during jury deliberations.

save any cats today?

toss any gays off of any roofs yet?

I would love to save cats. I certainly understand the level of disgust that would lead to an obnoxious gay getting tossed off a roof.

As to the subject at hand. Which trial was it where witnesses were called during jury deliberations? You have to know of at least one.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Who should the Senate call to testify and why didn’t the House do it?

Just a list of names and reasons.

Thanks.

 

[Care4all]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

Schiff obviously lied to Congress. If who the whistleblower is, he sure as **** does and he sure as **** talked to the whistleblower.

The fact that the House voted to impeach without the material witness testifying is absolutely banana republic type shit.

Just unfucking real.

But why would it matter if the whistleblower went to the House Intel Committee's office to ask for advice? And the WB being advised by a staffer to file an official whistleblower report with the inspector general, and let him determine the gravity or legitimacy... why would that be anything but proper procedure and advice?

And NOTE! This WB came AFTER two other WB individuals whowent to their own dept's legal defense teams to report the same concerns, and their own office of legal counsels got no result in reporting it.

And what does the WB have to do with the articles of impeachment charged against President Trump, that he is suppose to face a trial on, and offer his defense of the article charges?

The IG found evidence that the WB complaint was both credible and urgent,

and by LAW was required to be turned over to Congress.

OF COURSE the whitehouse team tried to illegally prevent this from happening and to cover it up.

But by law, after so many days, the IG is required to let congress intel committee know that there is a WB Complaint that is urgent, that is being held back by the WHouse from you, that you are legally suppose to have gotten....

and that's what the IG did... he followed the law and let the house intel committee know about the WB complaint being hidden from them, and that is when ALL HELL BROKE LOSE.

Then afterwards in the depositions and hearings under OATH, all the witnesses that did show up, basically confirmed the WB Complaint had legs to it, and was both appearing credible and urgent...

So, I don't understand your angst regarding Schiff or the WB on this...? Neither, can help the president in his own defense of what he was actually charged with, in the Articles of impeachment?

The president needs a REAL defense of the charges..

(and discrediting the WB doesn't much matter at this point because of the evidence collected thus far= emails, phone call memorandums, video of statements of Trump and of Mulveney, Diplomat conversations and texts, and sworn witnesses, etc... enough to bring charges... which the preponderance is only probable cause at this point)

yes, a REAL defense... maybe a likely paper trail could be shown, or communications going back months, showing his real concern was corruption and not just his own self dealing, or Mulveney testifying Trump's concern was overall corruption in the Ukraine or something unexpected...

The president has refused to allow first hand witnesses or documents that were subpoenaed in the House phase,

but maybe it is because he wants to bring them up in the Senate trial for his own defense and did not want to show his hand early in the 'production', in the show....? You know he deep down loves reality tv and the production of it, with all the suspense, chaos, and surprises... ratings matter!

we all and the president, would not be in this mess, if it were not for the whitehouse team trying to hold back the WB complaint from getting to congress imo.

congress would have gotten it, in secret, investigated it, in secret....

All of that did not happen in secret,

because of the WH's attempts to cover up the whistle blower complaints.

sigh...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

Schiff obviously lied to Congress. If who the whistleblower is, he sure as **** does and he sure as **** talked to the whistleblower.

The fact that the House voted to impeach without the material witness testifying is absolutely banana republic type shit.

Just unfucking real.

But why would it matter if the whistleblower went to the House Intel Committee's office to ask for advice? And the WB being advised by a staffer to file an official whistleblower report with the inspector general, and let him determine the gravity or legitimacy... why would that be anything but proper procedure and advice?

And NOTE! This WB came AFTER two other WB individuals whowent to their own dept's legal defense teams to report the same concerns, and their own office of legal counsels got no result in reporting it.

And what does the WB have to do with the articles of impeachment charged against President Trump, that he is suppose to face a trial on, and offer his defense of the article charges?

The IG found evidence that the WB complaint was both credible and urgent,

and by LAW was required to be turned over to Congress.

OF COURSE the whitehouse team tried to illegally prevent this from happening and to cover it up.

But by law, after so many days, the IG is required to let congress intel committee know that there is a WB Complaint that is urgent, that is being held back by the WHouse from you, that you are legally suppose to have gotten....

and that's what the IG did... he followed the law and let the house intel committee know about the WB complaint being hidden from them, and that is when ALL HELL BROKE LOSE.

Then afterwards in the depositions and hearings under OATH, all the witnesses that did show up, basically confirmed the WB Complaint had legs to it, and was both appearing credible and urgent...

So, I don't understand your angst regarding Schiff or the WB on this...? Neither, can help the president in his own defense of what he was actually charged with, in the Articles of impeachment?

The president needs a REAL defense of the charges..

(and discrediting the WB doesn't much matter at this point because of the evidence collected thus far= emails, phone call memorandums, video of statements of Trump and of Mulveney, Diplomat conversations and texts, and sworn witnesses, etc... enough to bring charges... which the preponderance is only probable cause at this point)

yes, a REAL defense... maybe a likely paper trail could be shown, or communications going back months, showing his real concern was corruption and not just his own self dealing, or Mulveney testifying Trump's concern was overall corruption in the Ukraine or something unexpected...

The president has refused to allow first hand witnesses or documents that were subpoenaed in the House phase,

but maybe it is because he wants to bring them up in the Senate trial for his own defense and did not want to show his hand early in the 'production', in the show....? You know he deep down loves reality tv and the production of it, with all the suspense, chaos, and surprises... ratings matter!

we all and the president, would not be in this mess, if it were not for the whitehouse team trying to hold back the WB complaint from getting to congress imo.

congress would have gotten it, in secret, investigated it, in secret....

All of that did not happen in secret,

because of the WH's attempts to cover up the whistle blower complaints.

sigh...

The whistleblower is a ******* CIA operative who is loyal to Biden and Brennan. It’s all bullshit. You seem like an intelligent person. Do the math. You know this was bullshit and the impeachment is a clown show.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

Schiff obviously lied to Congress. If who the whistleblower is, he sure as **** does and he sure as **** talked to the whistleblower.

The fact that the House voted to impeach without the material witness testifying is absolutely banana republic type shit.

Just unfucking real.

But why would it matter if the whistleblower went to the House Intel Committee's office to ask for advice? And the WB being advised by a staffer to file an official whistleblower report with the inspector general, and let him determine the gravity or legitimacy... why would that be anything but proper procedure and advice?

And NOTE! This WB came AFTER two other WB individuals whowent to their own dept's legal defense teams to report the same concerns, and their own office of legal counsels got no result in reporting it.

And what does the WB have to do with the articles of impeachment charged against President Trump, that he is suppose to face a trial on, and offer his defense of the article charges?

The IG found evidence that the WB complaint was both credible and urgent,

and by LAW was required to be turned over to Congress.

OF COURSE the whitehouse team tried to illegally prevent this from happening and to cover it up.

But by law, after so many days, the IG is required to let congress intel committee know that there is a WB Complaint that is urgent, that is being held back by the WHouse from you, that you are legally suppose to have gotten....

and that's what the IG did... he followed the law and let the house intel committee know about the WB complaint being hidden from them, and that is when ALL HELL BROKE LOSE.

Then afterwards in the depositions and hearings under OATH, all the witnesses that did show up, basically confirmed the WB Complaint had legs to it, and was both appearing credible and urgent...

So, I don't understand your angst regarding Schiff or the WB on this...? Neither, can help the president in his own defense of what he was actually charged with, in the Articles of impeachment?

The president needs a REAL defense of the charges..

(and discrediting the WB doesn't much matter at this point because of the evidence collected thus far= emails, phone call memorandums, video of statements of Trump and of Mulveney, Diplomat conversations and texts, and sworn witnesses, etc... enough to bring charges... which the preponderance is only probable cause at this point)

yes, a REAL defense... maybe a likely paper trail could be shown, or communications going back months, showing his real concern was corruption and not just his own self dealing, or Mulveney testifying Trump's concern was overall corruption in the Ukraine or something unexpected...

The president has refused to allow first hand witnesses or documents that were subpoenaed in the House phase,

but maybe it is because he wants to bring them up in the Senate trial for his own defense and did not want to show his hand early in the 'production', in the show....? You know he deep down loves reality tv and the production of it, with all the suspense, chaos, and surprises... ratings matter!

we all and the president, would not be in this mess, if it were not for the whitehouse team trying to hold back the WB complaint from getting to congress imo.

congress would have gotten it, in secret, investigated it, in secret....

All of that did not happen in secret,

because of the WH's attempts to cover up the whistle blower complaints.

sigh...

You do in reality realize that this is all going to go down in flames, yes?

 

[Cellblock2429]

McConnell has to prevent any testimony in the impeachment trial, because Trump's people don't want to try to defend him in sworn testimony. It was easy for them to not appear before the house investigation because Trump didn't want them to testify, but he wants his people to stand up and vigorously defend him in the trial. Those potential witnesses are still afraid of being caught in lies, or not being energetic enough in their defense of Trump. It's just too much of a chance for them to take. McConnell has to either prevent everybody from testifying, or try to explain why Trump's people are a no show.

/—-/ You’re grasping at straws - as usual. Trump has made it clear he wants his day in court. Do you think all the Impeachtards including Old Joe Biden and Hunter want to testify under oath?

 

[daveman]

Argue for him? The situation is beyond ego. Democrats started it but they seem reluctant to go through with it. Nancy won't even face a friendly media.

With Trump, nothing is beyond his ego. Why do you think it is unreasonable for Pelosi to ask for a fair trial?

Pelosi doesn't want a fair trial. She wants her kangaroo court rubber-stamped.

And so do you.

A fair trial in the Senate would be nice. Senators should honor their oaths to deliver impartial justice.

If Donald Trump had any evidence to defend himself he would have already presented it.

You really don't know anything about this. You should perhaps stop.

Your pain is palpable. I don't like to cause grown men to cry.

That's good. Because it didn't happen.

 

[lennypartiv]

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

So Trump and his staff should have walked into a perjury trap?

 

[Care4all]

Why didn’t the Dimms call the the witnesses they want the Senate to call?

We have seen the testimony and Schiff’s report. What else needs to be done?

OP, who do you want to testify before the senate and why didn’t they testify before the house? Be specific. Names and reasons.

Jurors look at the evidence. They don’t call new witnesses.

Easy answer. The Witnesses they wanted, Rump declared Executive Privilege and barred them from testifying. The House did what it could with what was left. The problem is, if the House were to take it to court, it would have been at least 2 years of court battle, many millions of dollars before it could be resolved. And given the nixon days, those excluded witnesses would be compelled to testify but Rump could have tied it up for years in court. Another free ride for Rump.

The witness they wanted was the Adam Shitface Schiff's whistle blower that he first said would show up, until the transcript of the call came out, and then Adam mysteriously misplaced the "lying piece of shit whistleblower". Sorry, but you are so stupid, and there is nothing we can do to make you any smarter.

Schiff obviously lied to Congress. If who the whistleblower is, he sure as **** does and he sure as **** talked to the whistleblower.

The fact that the House voted to impeach without the material witness testifying is absolutely banana republic type shit.

Just unfucking real.

But why would it matter if the whistleblower went to the House Intel Committee's office to ask for advice? And the WB being advised by a staffer to file an official whistleblower report with the inspector general, and let him determine the gravity or legitimacy... why would that be anything but proper procedure and advice?

And NOTE! This WB came AFTER two other WB individuals whowent to their own dept's legal defense teams to report the same concerns, and their own office of legal counsels got no result in reporting it.

And what does the WB have to do with the articles of impeachment charged against President Trump, that he is suppose to face a trial on, and offer his defense of the article charges?

The IG found evidence that the WB complaint was both credible and urgent,

and by LAW was required to be turned over to Congress.

OF COURSE the whitehouse team tried to illegally prevent this from happening and to cover it up.

But by law, after so many days, the IG is required to let congress intel committee know that there is a WB Complaint that is urgent, that is being held back by the WHouse from you, that you are legally suppose to have gotten....

and that's what the IG did... he followed the law and let the house intel committee know about the WB complaint being hidden from them, and that is when ALL HELL BROKE LOSE.

Then afterwards in the depositions and hearings under OATH, all the witnesses that did show up, basically confirmed the WB Complaint had legs to it, and was both appearing credible and urgent...

So, I don't understand your angst regarding Schiff or the WB on this...? Neither, can help the president in his own defense of what he was actually charged with, in the Articles of impeachment?

The president needs a REAL defense of the charges..

(and discrediting the WB doesn't much matter at this point because of the evidence collected thus far= emails, phone call memorandums, video of statements of Trump and of Mulveney, Diplomat conversations and texts, and sworn witnesses, etc... enough to bring charges... which the preponderance is only probable cause at this point)

yes, a REAL defense... maybe a likely paper trail could be shown, or communications going back months, showing his real concern was corruption and not just his own self dealing, or Mulveney testifying Trump's concern was overall corruption in the Ukraine or something unexpected...

The president has refused to allow first hand witnesses or documents that were subpoenaed in the House phase,

but maybe it is because he wants to bring them up in the Senate trial for his own defense and did not want to show his hand early in the 'production', in the show....? You know he deep down loves reality tv and the production of it, with all the suspense, chaos, and surprises... ratings matter!

we all and the president, would not be in this mess, if it were not for the whitehouse team trying to hold back the WB complaint from getting to congress imo.

congress would have gotten it, in secret, investigated it, in secret....

All of that did not happen in secret,

because of the WH's attempts to cover up the whistle blower complaints.

sigh...

You do in reality realize that this is all going to go down in flames, yes?

I don't mind if the president is acquitted after it is all done, and that is what the impartial votes come out to be by the Senators.

But, would ONLY be satisfied to believe the American people were not dicked from here to high heaven by McConnell and scummy politics, if there were a real trial, with real witnesses and documents as evidence, from both sides, the defendant and prosecutor.

I'm sure every defendant would love to have a trial where the prosecutors were not allowed to present their new and old evidence and witnesses...

We are a country of laws, not men..... and we deserve better than that kind of THE FIX IS IN, situation.... we are NOT a Banana Republic or third world country.... it would be shameful as a Nation to have a sham trial for something so important as this.... the president would be forever known, for his acquittal being a sham... A FIX.... like a mob boss gets a trial fixed in his favor by paying off the jury....

He is likely to be acquitted with a full evidentiary trial...an honest trial instead of a FIXED one, because he needs 2/3's of senators convict him....

The president, and the American people to have faith in the system and all....deserve to see and hear all the evidence... before the Senators have to vote.

But I guess I don't expect any of you Trumpers to understand all of that....

 

[BULLDOG]

McConnell has to prevent any testimony in the impeachment trial, because Trump's people don't want to try to defend him in sworn testimony. It was easy for them to not appear before the house investigation because Trump didn't want them to testify, but he wants his people to stand up and vigorously defend him in the trial. Those potential witnesses are still afraid of being caught in lies, or not being energetic enough in their defense of Trump. It's just too much of a chance for them to take. McConnell has to either prevent everybody from testifying, or try to explain why Trump's people are a no show.

/—-/ You’re grasping at straws - as usual. Trump has made it clear he wants his day in court. Do you think all the Impeachtards including Old Joe Biden and Hunter want to testify under oath?

Yes, it's clear that Trump wants to open everything up to be investigated. He wants to make it a massive exercise in "what-about-ism" and muddy the subject till nobody is even sure what is being discussed. It's one of his favorite tactics. However, McConnell knows that Roberts will at least make some effort to limit the trial to the subject at hand, and if the trial is focused on that, it won't work out well for Trump. Anything that could be used to compel Bolton, Mulvaney, Blair, and Duffey to testify won't work out well for Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Has anyone on the R side even tried to defend his actions, what is alleged in the articles of impeachment?

personally, I'd rather see the R's not defend his actions, say they were wrong, but just believe they do not rise to a ''removal from office'' level...

than to obfuscate and make up false stories, which only weakens us and our Nation...

 

[lennypartiv]

This is a losing issue for liberals. Democrats do a sorry ass job of defending Obama for his illegally spying on Trump.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Has anyone on the R side even tried to defend his actions, what is alleged in the articles of impeachment?

personally, I'd rather see the R's not defend his actions, say they were wrong, but just believe they do not rise to a ''removal from office'' level...

than to obfuscate and make up false stories, which only weakens us and our Nation...

There's nothing to defend. If there is, then offer proof.