Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[OldLady]

the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....

The people the Republicans wanted to call had no bearing on Trump's behavior. It has been explained to you over and over. Both Bidens were already investigated and found NOT GUILTY of what the Repubs are accusing them of. Crowdstrike is a bad dream cooked up by the bots and having no stake in reality. Calling the whistleblower and Schumer to browbeat them for bringing forth a complaint against the Orange Lord is nothing but petty revenge.

So who else did they want to call? Sondland was theirs. I heard him. Maybe they should have let him stay home. lol

the fact that Trump inquired about what Biden boasted about on live television when he said if the prosecutor is not fired you,re not getting the money makes him relevant to the trial .... thats the main reason the dems originally held the impeachment inquiry ! so its the senates duty to see if Trump was justified by asking Ukraine to look into it ..notice he said look into it ..he didnt ask them to drum up false accusations to frame him like the dems did with their bullshit dossier .

The Bidens' role has already been investigated and they were not found guilty of anything. Trump knew that; he was just pissed off that some Ukranians backed Hillary in 2016. He wanted it to LOOK like Biden had done something wrong by making The Announcement that Sondland said was so important to Trump. It just needed to look like Biden might have done something--even though Trump knew better.
Biden is his political opponent.
Doesn't need a rocket scientist,here, yidnair.

I guess it would depend on your definition of "guilt", Old Lady! Are the Biden's guilty of a crime for all of the money that Hunter Biden raked in on that no show job he had no qualifications for? Quite frankly I don't see anything criminal there. Was it sleazy and totally inappropriate? Oh yeah it was! That's why Hunter resigned when it became an issue. Joe Biden knows damn well it wasn't appropriate and shame on him for not putting the kabosh on it. But let's be honest here...Joe Biden has been hooking Hunter up with jobs due to his influence ever since Hunter left college. He has a long history of that. Once again...not illegal. Once again...totally sleazy and inappropriate.

That's quite different from wanting to call the Bidens to testify about their involvement with Burisma, don't you think?
Did Hunter get the job with Burisma because he was Joe Biden's son? Of course. But cheer up; at least you weren't having to pay for his food stamps and rehab via Medicaid.
Getting jobs because it's who you know happens everywhere at every level, and while we wrinkle our noses at it, if Hunter was hired and his work satisfied Burisma, it really was their business, not ours. It is my strong belief that this all came up because it is campaign season. Biden's announcement about withholding aid was made two years ago. You know how Trump loves oppo--he'll even take it from our foreign adversaries if he can get it.

 

[OldLady]

the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....

The people the Republicans wanted to call had no bearing on Trump's behavior. It has been explained to you over and over. Both Bidens were already investigated and found NOT GUILTY of what the Repubs are accusing them of. Crowdstrike is a bad dream cooked up by the bots and having no stake in reality. Calling the whistleblower and Schumer to browbeat them for bringing forth a complaint against the Orange Lord is nothing but petty revenge.

So who else did they want to call? Sondland was theirs. I heard him. Maybe they should have let him stay home. lol

the fact that Trump inquired about what Biden boasted about on live television when he said if the prosecutor is not fired you,re not getting the money makes him relevant to the trial .... thats the main reason the dems originally held the impeachment inquiry ! so its the senates duty to see if Trump was justified by asking Ukraine to look into it ..notice he said look into it ..he didnt ask them to drum up false accusations to frame him like the dems did with their bullshit dossier .

The Bidens' role has already been investigated and they were not found guilty of anything. Trump knew that; he was just pissed off that some Ukranians backed Hillary in 2016. He wanted it to LOOK like Biden had done something wrong by making The Announcement that Sondland said was so important to Trump. It just needed to look like Biden might have done something--even though Trump knew better.
Biden is his political opponent.
Doesn't need a rocket scientist,here, yidnair.

Found not guilty? So he was tried in a court of law? Or "found not guilty" by reason of firing the prosecutor? That does help the ol' "not guilty" thing when the person in charge of charging you with a crime is fired.

The prosecutor who took Shokin's place completed the investigation. There was no "trial" because they didn't do anything illegal.

 

[airplanemechanic]

the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....

The people the Republicans wanted to call had no bearing on Trump's behavior. It has been explained to you over and over. Both Bidens were already investigated and found NOT GUILTY of what the Repubs are accusing them of. Crowdstrike is a bad dream cooked up by the bots and having no stake in reality. Calling the whistleblower and Schumer to browbeat them for bringing forth a complaint against the Orange Lord is nothing but petty revenge.

So who else did they want to call? Sondland was theirs. I heard him. Maybe they should have let him stay home. lol

the fact that Trump inquired about what Biden boasted about on live television when he said if the prosecutor is not fired you,re not getting the money makes him relevant to the trial .... thats the main reason the dems originally held the impeachment inquiry ! so its the senates duty to see if Trump was justified by asking Ukraine to look into it ..notice he said look into it ..he didnt ask them to drum up false accusations to frame him like the dems did with their bullshit dossier .

The Bidens' role has already been investigated and they were not found guilty of anything. Trump knew that; he was just pissed off that some Ukranians backed Hillary in 2016. He wanted it to LOOK like Biden had done something wrong by making The Announcement that Sondland said was so important to Trump. It just needed to look like Biden might have done something--even though Trump knew better.
Biden is his political opponent.
Doesn't need a rocket scientist,here, yidnair.

Found not guilty? So he was tried in a court of law? Or "found not guilty" by reason of firing the prosecutor? That does help the ol' "not guilty" thing when the person in charge of charging you with a crime is fired.

The prosecutor who took Shokin's place completed the investigation. There was no "trial" because they didn't do anything illegal.

Oh I bet he did "complete it" LOL

 

[Dana7360]

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.

Which, they opted not to do for reasons of time, and because such a lawsuit was already filed and would be decided. Guess what? The judge ruled that they have to comply.

A federal judge, except the Supreme Court says different in an Obama era ruling.

The supreme court ruled on executive privilege and congressional demands for information? When? I don't think they have.

They ruled on it in 1974 when Nixon was being impeached. He claimed executive privilege to hold back the tape recordings and certain records between nixon and some of his cabinet who were indicted by the grand jury.

The case went to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled unanimously.

Nixon lost.

The tapes were released and the population turned against nixon. nixon resigned 16 days later.

 

[Faun]

Again, lying con tool... the unemployment rate was already about 8% when the ARRA was passed.

That earlier prediction was already out the window.

That earlier prediction was so clueless that it WAS already out the window when the ARRA was passed...just like the claims about "shovel ready" jobs was out the window by the end of the summer! Face it, Faun...you progressives just plain SUCK at creating jobs! It's just not your thing. You're good at buying votes. You need to give things to people to get them to support you.

LOLOL

Obama added 16 million jobs in his last 7 years.

Bush43 added 1 million jobs in 8 years.

Clinton added 23 million jobs in 8 years.

Bush41 added 3 million jobs in 4 years.

Reagan added 16 million jobs in 8 years.

Carter added 10 million jobs in 4 years.

Even deducting the 4 million jobs lost during Obama's first year after inheriting Bush's Great Recession, we still find over the last 6 presidents spanning 20 years of Democrats and 20 years of Republicans, we end up with...

Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs

Do you ever stop lying, ya lying con tool?

Ever???

Obama added those jobs? How exactly did he do that? What economic policy of HIS was it that made that happen? As I've said repeatedly...the American economy slowly recovered DESPITE Barack Obama's totally clueless economic policies! He wasn't responsible for the oil and natural gas boom that drove job creation...he opposed the use of fracking that created that boom!
As usual...you use statistics to hide the truth.

Asked and answered, lying con tool. Meanwhile, despite your lies, Democrats have added roughly twice as many jobs over the last 6 presidencies.

Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs

You give Obama credit for something he had nothing to do with...but accuse me of being untruthful? You're one of the board's biggest bullshit artists, Faun. You use statistics to obscure the truth and then whine about "liars" when you get called on it!

Slobbers a lying con tool who thinks Impeached Trump began improving the economy without passing any policies.

 

[Faun]

Again, lying con tool... the unemployment rate was already about 8% when the ARRA was passed.

That earlier prediction was already out the window.

That earlier prediction was so clueless that it WAS already out the window when the ARRA was passed...just like the claims about "shovel ready" jobs was out the window by the end of the summer! Face it, Faun...you progressives just plain SUCK at creating jobs! It's just not your thing. You're good at buying votes. You need to give things to people to get them to support you.

LOLOL

Obama added 16 million jobs in his last 7 years.

Bush43 added 1 million jobs in 8 years.

Clinton added 23 million jobs in 8 years.

Bush41 added 3 million jobs in 4 years.

Reagan added 16 million jobs in 8 years.

Carter added 10 million jobs in 4 years.

Even deducting the 4 million jobs lost during Obama's first year after inheriting Bush's Great Recession, we still find over the last 6 presidents spanning 20 years of Democrats and 20 years of Republicans, we end up with...

Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs

Do you ever stop lying, ya lying con tool?

Ever???

Obama added those jobs? How exactly did he do that? What economic policy of HIS was it that made that happen? As I've said repeatedly...the American economy slowly recovered DESPITE Barack Obama's totally clueless economic policies! He wasn't responsible for the oil and natural gas boom that drove job creation...he opposed the use of fracking that created that boom!
As usual...you use statistics to hide the truth.

Asked and answered, lying con tool. Meanwhile, despite your lies, Democrats have added roughly twice as many jobs over the last 6 presidencies.

Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs

Let's take a look at real numbers that take the size of the entire economy into consideration when talking job numbers:

Which President Created the Most Jobs?

Oh wait.....Obama isn't near the top. In fact, Obama is under JIMMY CARTER!! LOLOL Clinton is top of the list, but he handed Bush the dot-com bubble. Clinton wasn't responsible for the jobs, the growth in tech that just so happened under his administration was what grew the jobs but that busted in his face in 2000.

Roosevelt was actually the biggest increase in jobs under a president. But that was before the parties switched. He would NOT be considered anything CLOSE to a democrat today.

Reagan is number 3, a republican by todays standards.

I didn't get very far into that bullshit to see they made up their own numbers.

They claim Clinton added 18.6 million jobs.

But the BLS shows he added 22.9 million...

1.1993: 109799
1.2001: 132712

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Democrat ..... 45 million jobs
Republican ... 20 million jobs

 

[Dana7360]

I never claimed you didn't post a list, Faun...you did...the problem however is that your "list" doesn't prove Obama's economic policies created jobs! It's laughably bad. Feel free to trot it out once again though...I'm sure someone else could use a chuckle!

Slobbers a lying con tool.

Truth hurts...doesn't it, Faun!

Not at all and no truths are found in your post.

No truth? You know as well as I do that Barry was terrible at job creation. You just refuse to admit it. Instead...you fall back on personal insults repeated ad nauseum and your pathetic use of a graph that doesn't reveal the truth about what took place back then.

His record shows otherwise, lying con tool.

Wow the person you replied to really isn't dealing with reality.

When Obama became president we were bleeding 850 thousand jobs a month. The bush boy's economic collapse sent the unemployment rate up to 10%.

By the time Obama was finished that unemployment rate was slashed to 4.7%.

That's a decrease of 5.3%.

In contrast trump has decreased the unemployment rate by 1%.

When trump has a record of decreasing the unemployment rate by 5.3% he would have caught up to Obama's record and I would be impressed.

Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.

Most of the jobs that trump has created are low paying service jobs and jobs dependent on tax dollars in the military industrial complex.

The person who has the terrible job creation record isn't Obama.

You're right. That person is a lying con tool.

 

[Faun]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

And that "transcript" reveals Impeached Trump broke the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

 

[Faun]

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.

No he didn't, quit your lying

He's not lying. Impeached Trump's acting chief of staff admitted to it...

"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney​

 

[Faun]

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime. Even if there was no quid pro quo.

 

[Faun]

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.

Trump withheld Federal funding because he was concerned about rampant corruption in the Ukraine. He asked the President of the Ukraine to look into that issue. Was looking into Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine included in that request? Yes, it was and for good reason. What took place between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma and the government of the Ukraine smells to high heaven. At BEST it's highly inappropriate! At worst it's outright influence peddling. That isn't a "partisan" view...it's simply seeing what's THERE!

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so concerned about corruption that the only things he asked Zelensky to look into were related to his own election.

And what did Zelensky do that inspired Impeached Trump to finally release the funds some 4 months after Zelensky became president?

 

[Faun]

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

Oh **** off. There has been evidence presented. It all points to Trump's guilt.

Let the Senate base their decision on that.

If Trump has something to add, then he should do it. He can testify under oath.

The Senate WILL base their decision on that and they will vote not to impeach. Why? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE THAT ADAM SCHIFF "PRESENTED" WAS PATHETICALLY BAD!!!

Imbecile, from where do you get this nonsense??

The Senate does not vote "not to impeach."

Impeached Trump is already impeached. There's nothing the Senate can do to change that.

 

[Faun]

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

As far as I'm concerned, there has been plenty of evidence presented and I agree that he should be impeached. And removed. However, a lot of lawyers who know about standards in court do not believe it is enough.

When you hold a gun to a man's chest and say "This is not a stickup, just give me all your money," it is still a stickup. Zelensky has several million good reasons to say whatever Trump wants him to say.

Trump stuck a gun to Zelensky's chest and demanded money? What are you babbling about?

Zelensky was requesting aid from the US. Trump granted him that aid. He also asked the President of the Ukraine to look into apparent corruption that had taken place there. He didn't ask him to make up things about Joe Biden like you liberals did to him in the previous election...he simply asked Zelensky to look into apparent corruption. Bottom line? Trump did nothing that ALL President's haven't done! Impeaching him over THIS is laughable!

Um, lying con tool, the Burisma case was settled and closed before Impeached Trump asked Zelensky to re-open it.

 

[Faun]

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

Biden withheld foreign aid in order to get a foreign gov't to fire a prosecutor looking into the corrupt dealings of his son. And that gets a pass by you?

Liar. No one was investigating Biden's son.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[Jitss617]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

And that "transcript" reveals Impeached Trump broke the law by soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

Link?

 

[edward37]

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

Biden withheld foreign aid in order to get a foreign gov't to fire a prosecutor looking into the corrupt dealings of his son. And that gets a pass by you?

Liar. No one was investigating Biden's son.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Where's bri ?

 

[Meister]

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime. Even if there was no quid pro quo.

That is funny, Faun.....That's not even what he was impeached for, and if it was as obvious to them as it is to you, they would have brought it forward. lol

 

[edward37]

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime. Even if there was no quid pro quo.

That is funny, Faun.....That's not even what he was impeached for, and if it was as obvious to them as it is to you, they would have brought it forward. lol

Hate to mention it Mr Meister but the longer Pelosi waits the better the chance of finding more impeachable evidence Then Trump could have a double header ..1st president impeached in 1st term and 1st with a double impeachment

 

[Meister]

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime. Even if there was no quid pro quo.

That is funny, Faun.....That's not even what he was impeached for, and if it was as obvious to them as it is to you, they would have brought it forward. lol

Hate to mention it Mr Meister but the longer Pelosi waits the better the chance of finding more impeachable evidence Then Trump could have a double header ..1st president impeached in 1st term and 1st with a double impeachment

Another first was a bipartisan vote that went against the prosecuting party. Leaves a taint of political gamesmanship.
It just lowers the bar for impeachable offenses

 

[edward37]

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

Soliciting a foreign national to help with Impeached Trump's campaign is a crime. Even if there was no quid pro quo.

That is funny, Faun.....That's not even what he was impeached for, and if it was as obvious to them as it is to you, they would have brought it forward. lol

Hate to mention it Mr Meister but the longer Pelosi waits the better the chance of finding more impeachable evidence Then Trump could have a double header ..1st president impeached in 1st term and 1st with a double impeachment

Another first was a bipartisan vote that went against the prosecuting party. Leaves a taint of political gamesmanship.
It just lowers the bar for impeachable offenses

bipartisan? with how many DINO's voted no? You're counting the one who changed parties?