What Witnesses Should Be Called At Senate Trial?

[OldLady]

None of those people are actual witnesses, they don't know anything.

Further, President Trump has made a claim of executive privilege to stop them from testifying, just like Obama and Clinton did before him. If the House disagrees, they should bring it through the courts, it isn't a High Crime for the president to disagree with Congress.

Clinton testified at his, why is Trump hiding?

There was actually DNA evidence against Bill Clinton.

If Mueller or Schiff could show Russian Hooker DNA on a ruined, urine-soaked hotel mattress, President Trump would address that.

Well he would fuck it up, just like he did with Stormy Daniels. Why doesn't he just come on in and tell us about that PERFECT phone call.

There is already a transcript of the call in question. Maybe he can call President Zelensky to the stand?

No, that was not a transcript to that call....because they still got the actual transcript hidden in that secret server....

Biff, one witness told us what was left out of the "public" transcript and another witness who listened to the call said it was a reliable summary. I questioned that, also, until she said it was a good transcript.

 

[Papageorgio]

In America, we have an option to testify in our own trial or to testify in our trial. The is part of what makes America great.

No shit, I am asking him to use that option genius.

Why? If you were President and the other party twisted everything you said, like they have for the last 20 years, why give the opposition the rope to hang you?

First of all they aren't twisting a damn thing. If the guy tells a lie and it is proven to be a lie then guess what? It's a lie. Maybe he should stop running his damn mouth. Give me 3 things he said and they twisted it. The only way you give someone a rope to hang you with is when you are lying. Do you agree that Trump constantly lies?

You saw what they did to Bush and Obama, everything they said was taken out of context. I'd stay off the stand and let the evidence alone convict or not convict. Dumbass.

When you stick your foot in your mouth do I really need to try and change what you said. The dumbasses are Trump Humpers like you who think anything out this dude's mouth is etched in stone.

Trump Humpers are no different than Trump Haters, both are really delusional and dishonest. Tough to argue with either because logic is not a prerequisite.

Oh yea there is a huge difference between the two, it is just said that you can't see it.

Being in the middle and not liking either, I see it. I have watched this BS for years and I am done with the two parties, the humpers and the haters. They bring nothing positive to the table, they just divide the nation.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Clinton testified at his, why is Trump hiding?

There was actually DNA evidence against Bill Clinton.

If Mueller or Schiff could show Russian Hooker DNA on a ruined, urine-soaked hotel mattress, President Trump would address that.

Well he would fuck it up, just like he did with Stormy Daniels. Why doesn't he just come on in and tell us about that PERFECT phone call.

There is already a transcript of the call in question. Maybe he can call President Zelensky to the stand?

No, that was not a transcript to that call....because they still got the actual transcript hidden in that secret server....

Biff, one witness told us what was left out of the "public" transcript and another witness who listened to the call said it was a reliable summary. I questioned that, also, until she said it was a good transcript.

The reason the full transcript wasnt released is because it will make Trump look worse....trust me, if the full transcript helped him, he would release it

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No shit, I am asking him to use that option genius.

Why? If you were President and the other party twisted everything you said, like they have for the last 20 years, why give the opposition the rope to hang you?

First of all they aren't twisting a damn thing. If the guy tells a lie and it is proven to be a lie then guess what? It's a lie. Maybe he should stop running his damn mouth. Give me 3 things he said and they twisted it. The only way you give someone a rope to hang you with is when you are lying. Do you agree that Trump constantly lies?

You saw what they did to Bush and Obama, everything they said was taken out of context. I'd stay off the stand and let the evidence alone convict or not convict. Dumbass.

When you stick your foot in your mouth do I really need to try and change what you said. The dumbasses are Trump Humpers like you who think anything out this dude's mouth is etched in stone.

Trump Humpers are no different than Trump Haters, both are really delusional and dishonest. Tough to argue with either because logic is not a prerequisite.

Oh yea there is a huge difference between the two, it is just said that you can't see it.

Being in the middle and not liking either, I see it. I have watched this BS for years and I am done with the two parties, the humpers and the haters. They bring nothing positive to the table, they just divide the nation.

Which party is trying to cut Social security, medicare, separate kids from families because they think it plays well with their base, demonize women of color born in the US and tell them to go back to where they came from because it plays well wit their base??

Please spare me the "both parties are equally bad" deflection...

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No shit, I am asking him to use that option genius.

Why? If you were President and the other party twisted everything you said, like they have for the last 20 years, why give the opposition the rope to hang you?

First of all they aren't twisting a damn thing. If the guy tells a lie and it is proven to be a lie then guess what? It's a lie. Maybe he should stop running his damn mouth. Give me 3 things he said and they twisted it. The only way you give someone a rope to hang you with is when you are lying. Do you agree that Trump constantly lies?

You saw what they did to Bush and Obama, everything they said was taken out of context. I'd stay off the stand and let the evidence alone convict or not convict. Dumbass.

When you stick your foot in your mouth do I really need to try and change what you said. The dumbasses are Trump Humpers like you who think anything out this dude's mouth is etched in stone.

Trump Humpers are no different than Trump Haters, both are really delusional and dishonest. Tough to argue with either because logic is not a prerequisite.

Oh yea there is a huge difference between the two, it is just said that you can't see it.

Being in the middle and not liking either, I see it. I have watched this BS for years and I am done with the two parties, the humpers and the haters. They bring nothing positive to the table, they just divide the nation.

That is what you claim, but you constantly come on this forum and defend the bullshit Trump does. Which is EXACTLY what Trump Humpers do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

 

[Papageorgio]

In America, we have an option to testify in our own trial or to testify in our trial. The is part of what makes America great.

No shit, I am asking him to use that option genius.

Why? If you were President and the other party twisted everything you said, like they have for the last 20 years, why give the opposition the rope to hang you?

First of all they aren't twisting a damn thing. If the guy tells a lie and it is proven to be a lie then guess what? It's a lie. Maybe he should stop running his damn mouth. Give me 3 things he said and they twisted it. The only way you give someone a rope to hang you with is when you are lying. Do you agree that Trump constantly lies?

You saw what they did to Bush and Obama, everything they said was taken out of context. I'd stay off the stand and let the evidence alone convict or not convict. Dumbass.

When you stick your foot in your mouth do I really need to try and change what you said. The dumbasses are Trump Humpers like you who think anything out this dude's mouth is etched in stone.

Trump Humpers are no different than Trump Haters, both are really delusional and dishonest. Tough to argue with either because logic is not a prerequisite.

What does your logic say about a person who racked up over 80 indictments in 2 years??

That the black guy with ZERO indictments made them do it??

You are definitely a trumper.....

Whatever you want to believe, it matters not in my life.

 

[Papageorgio]

If it is secret server, how do you know about it and why would you tell others? Not much of a secret server.

Now this guy testified under oath about the existence of a secret server....was he lying??

if so, why hasn't Trump denied it or called for this guy to be charged with perjury


WATCH: Morrison says transcript of Trump-Zelensky call was placed on secure server by 'mistake'

You said secret server, now is it a secret server or a secured server? Make up your mind, are you Timmy's sock?

Secret, as in, it was placed on a server that ISN'T for calls for heads of state.....to keep it hidden....

If the call is so exonerating, why is it still being kept hidden??

So if you know about it, it isn't much of a secret, right?

It was a secret until someone testified under oath and said it was moved to "SECRET" server...moron

Now is he lying or no?

You tell me. It matters not what I or you think, it will all go to the House and then the Senate and you and I will be on the outside looking in. Except you know about secret servers, I'm extremely jealous. Thanks for the name calling, it confirms a lot.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Now this guy testified under oath about the existence of a secret server....was he lying??

if so, why hasn't Trump denied it or called for this guy to be charged with perjury


WATCH: Morrison says transcript of Trump-Zelensky call was placed on secure server by 'mistake'

You said secret server, now is it a secret server or a secured server? Make up your mind, are you Timmy's sock?

Secret, as in, it was placed on a server that ISN'T for calls for heads of state.....to keep it hidden....

If the call is so exonerating, why is it still being kept hidden??

So if you know about it, it isn't much of a secret, right?

It was a secret until someone testified under oath and said it was moved to "SECRET" server...moron

Now is he lying or no?

You tell me. It matters not what I or you think, it will all go to the House and then the Senate and you and I will be on the outside looking in. Except you know about secret servers, I'm extremely jealous. Thanks for the name calling, it confirms a lot.

Yea, it says that you like to feign outrage over name calling while being a sycophant for a guy whose whole campaign was name calling...

That goofy shit don't work on me....any other deflections??

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So does that mean all of the people who were indicted or convicted by this whole sham should be immediately set free??

Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc etc etc.....

Or is all you care about is that your Daddy Trump doesn't get impeached??

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No shit, I am asking him to use that option genius.

Why? If you were President and the other party twisted everything you said, like they have for the last 20 years, why give the opposition the rope to hang you?

First of all they aren't twisting a damn thing. If the guy tells a lie and it is proven to be a lie then guess what? It's a lie. Maybe he should stop running his damn mouth. Give me 3 things he said and they twisted it. The only way you give someone a rope to hang you with is when you are lying. Do you agree that Trump constantly lies?

You saw what they did to Bush and Obama, everything they said was taken out of context. I'd stay off the stand and let the evidence alone convict or not convict. Dumbass.

When you stick your foot in your mouth do I really need to try and change what you said. The dumbasses are Trump Humpers like you who think anything out this dude's mouth is etched in stone.

Trump Humpers are no different than Trump Haters, both are really delusional and dishonest. Tough to argue with either because logic is not a prerequisite.

What does your logic say about a person who racked up over 80 indictments in 2 years??

That the black guy with ZERO indictments made them do it??

You are definitely a trumper.....

Whatever you want to believe, it matters not in my life.

Of course it doesn't matter, but keep it real. You run to Trump's defense in a heart beat and you never criticize anything the guy does, so why wouldn't folks think you are a Trump Humper.

 

[Papageorgio]

You said secret server, now is it a secret server or a secured server? Make up your mind, are you Timmy's sock?

Secret, as in, it was placed on a server that ISN'T for calls for heads of state.....to keep it hidden....

If the call is so exonerating, why is it still being kept hidden??

So if you know about it, it isn't much of a secret, right?

It was a secret until someone testified under oath and said it was moved to "SECRET" server...moron

Now is he lying or no?

You tell me. It matters not what I or you think, it will all go to the House and then the Senate and you and I will be on the outside looking in. Except you know about secret servers, I'm extremely jealous. Thanks for the name calling, it confirms a lot.

Yea, it says that you like to feign outrage over name calling while being a sycophant for a guy whose whole campaign was name calling...

That goofy shit don't work on me....any other deflections??

The name calling is why I didn't vote for Trump. I don't like insecure people that call others names because they think it makes them look better. Trump was the last Republican I want to see nominated and Clinton was the last Democrat I wanted to see nominated. I'm a real fiscal conservative and Trump is a liberal spender, look at his deficit, it keeps growing. We need a viable option however the Democrats have none, just more of the same social BS.

The ideal is a Republican Congress with a Democratic President, that is when spending seems to be reigned in. Not seeing that combo until at least 2024 and by then we could be so far under water fiscally only drastic measures would help.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So does that mean all of the people who were indicted or convicted by this whole sham should be immediately set free??

Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc etc etc.....

Or is all you care about is that your Daddy Trump doesn't get impeached??

No one has been arrested or indicted by the Democrats' sham impeachment investigation in the House. Try to stick to the facts.

 

[Polishprince]

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. .

Exactly. The senate is there to listen to, and here the evidence the House already has and determine if its sufficient.

No one has spoken to these "witnesses" and doesn't know what they know about these articles of impeachment if anything.

If the House of Reps needs more time to do an investigation, they should take it. If necessary, the Dems should reelect President Trump to give them enough time to provide a completed investigation and report.

 

[Polishprince]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So does that mean all of the people who were indicted or convicted by this whole sham should be immediately set free??

Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, etc etc etc.....

Or is all you care about is that your Daddy Trump doesn't get impeached??

None of those individuals were even on the WH payroll at the time of the alleged "crimes" cited in the Phony Articles of Impeachment.

 

[westwall]

Hunter biden
Joe biden
Obummer
Comey
Clapper
Brennan
Strzok
Page
McCabe
Rosenstein
Pelousy
Schittferbrains
Yavonovich
Vindman
Jabbathenadler
Obummers last AG whose name escapes me
The shrilary
Steele
Glen Michaels
Rooooody
Bolton
Mueller
All of the mueller operatives
Valerie jarret
Syd Blumenthal
Schittferbrains two minions who also seem to work for burisma
Durham, of course

And when Republicans don't call any of them...when republicans refuse to call any witness...

Then what will be the next excuse??

Excuse for what. I watched the entire fiasco. There was ZERO evidence presented that Trump did anything wrong other than hurt the feelings of a bunch of professional whiners, and state department experts who feel that they should be dictating policy instead of the POTUS.

They are flat assed wrong.

 

[jameny5]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

Biff - are you trying to have the President get more impeachable charges? He can't lock up President Obama. Are you encouraging more wrongdoing? This is what we don't want to happen ever again. In countries abroad they go after and even kill their opposition. Is this your position too?

I believe Trump will show his base his superior strength if he has Obama killed...

Just like Obama had Epstein killed....

You mean Donald Trump and the GOP had Epstein killed. You guys can't make your minds up. First it was the Clinton's now it's the Obama's. What are you on the stuff that is making Donny Boy loony toon toon? Sniff, sniff, snort, snort. I will be watching that snout [emoji103]of Trump's at the debates. Oh I forgot he is not showing up so we don't see his red shiny nose!

 

[jameny5]

Hunter biden
Joe biden
Obummer
Comey
Clapper
Brennan
Strzok
Page
McCabe
Rosenstein
Pelousy
Schittferbrains
Yavonovich
Vindman
Jabbathenadler
Obummers last AG whose name escapes me
The shrilary
Steele
Glen Michaels
Rooooody
Bolton
Mueller
All of the mueller operatives
Valerie jarret
Syd Blumenthal
Schittferbrains two minions who also seem to work for burisma
Durham, of course

And when Republicans don't call any of them...when republicans refuse to call any witness...

Then what will be the next excuse??

If the Dems don't prove anything , why call witnesses to rebut? President Trump might decide to, or might not, but it isn't necessary to complete the case.

You'll never be a lawyer. Let the star of 15,000 lies and counting testify. Put Carnival man on the stand. The GOP won't let Trumplestilsken take stand because Trumpy has no defense. Make sure you test him for cocaine before you swear him in. Allot him two cheeseburgers and a diet Coke for lunch and nothing more.