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

[Mac-7]

Schumer was right

But from the standpoint of liberal Deep Staters wrong to say it in public

Great, so show what the intelligence community did to "strike back" at Impeached Trump...

They concocted a phony russia collusion witchhunt

a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration. Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.

We know the intel rats did concoct

Oh? What did they "concoct" after Schumer said what he said?

The trump-russia collusion hoax

 

[Mac-7]

They concocted a phony russia collusion witchhunt

a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration. Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.

Brennan, Clapper and Comey did exactly that as was revealed in the IG report!

The IG report stated the reasons to investigate potential collusion were "justified."

The AG and special criminal investigator durham disagreed

So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

 

[Faun]

Witnesses appear in trials, not just investigations. Republicans are circling the Impeached Trump's wagon abs are simply protecting him. If they really cared and the truth, which is the purpose of a trial, they wouldn't fear the truth.

Witnesses appear in trials, not just investigations. Republicans are circling the Impeached Trump's wagon abs are simply protecting him. If they really cared and the truth, which is the purpose of a trial, they wouldn't fear the truth.

The cops usually dont say “we think he’s guilty but dont have time to gather the evidence. So just take him to court and we’ll wing it”

Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.

Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have

Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah, Joe had nothing to do with Hunter making all that money doing a job he no clue how to do! You keep telling yourself that, Faun!

Prove Joe did something to get him that job....

You really think someone with zero experience with either the Ukraine or the natural gas industry...someone with a history of drug abuse...get's hired at that pay rate for that job if his father ISN'T the Vice President?

IT'S PATENTLY OBVIOUS WHY HUNTER BIDEN GOT THAT JOB!

Stop lying, ya lying con tool. You insinuated his father got him that job. Not that Hunter got it himself because of who his father was.

I didn't "insinuate" anything! I stated quite clearly that the only reason Hunter Biden got THAT job among many of his jobs was because of who his father is. Your claim that Hunter Biden "got it himself" is laughable!

I said he got the job himself because his father was VP.

You lied and said his father got him the job.

I can't believe THAT'S what you're going with, Faun! Let me ask you this then...do you think Joe Biden knew that his son was getting that position on the board of Burisma? Because if he did...then Joe Biden knew EXACTLY what was going on! His son was being paid off in the hope that it would influence him. Now the only question that needs to be answered is whether or not Burisma received anything for all of that money that they paid to the Biden family which is one of the things that Donald Trump asked that the Ukrainian President look into!

 

[Faun]

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him. There is zero evidence of the latter which is what lying con tools are claiming with nothing to back that up.

And the there certainly is evidence Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national for campaign help. It's revealed in his phone call with Zelensky where he asked the Ukrainian president to look into his political rival.

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

If you have evidence someone else got him they job, prove it...

That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

You are right, there isn't evidence about this yet. And that's why we need to get to the bottom of this, and find out exactly why Burisma hired Biden for the job. And that is going to require an investigation, on both sides of the Atlantic. Fortunately, America and Ukraine have a treaty to ensure cooperation and our nations' presidents have gotten to together on the phone to arrange an appropriate investigation.

Unfortunately, Impeached Trump circumvented the treaty rather than use it. Had he used the treaty, he likely wouldn't have gotten impeached.

That aside, Impeached Trump's defense is that he was simply trying to get a corrupt country to show they're cracking down on corruption. How is looking into a matter that occurred 6 years ago dealing with current corruption?

 

[Faun]

Great, so show what the intelligence community did to "strike back" at Impeached Trump...

They concocted a phony russia collusion witchhunt

a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration. Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.

We know the intel rats did concoct

Oh? What did they "concoct" after Schumer said what he said?

The trump-russia collusion hoax

That wasn't a hoax according to the IG report and even what you speak of happened before Schumer said what he said.

 

[Faun]

a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration. Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.

Brennan, Clapper and Comey did exactly that as was revealed in the IG report!

The IG report stated the reasons to investigate potential collusion were "justified."

The AG and special criminal investigator durham disagreed

So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

 

[Oldstyle]

The cops usually dont say “we think he’s guilty but dont have time to gather the evidence. So just take him to court and we’ll wing it”

Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.

Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have

Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

So some of Trump's staff is subpoenaed...he claims Executive Privilege...but rather than let the courts decide who is right and who is wrong...the Left moves to impeach immediately before the courts can rule on that?

Who's the real threat to the Constitution here? A President invoking something that other Presidents before him have invoked...or Democrats in Congress that have decided that THEY are the ones who will decide what is legal and what is a criminal act? So who changed the Constitution to exclude the Supreme Court? Not Trump.

 

[Faun]

Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.

Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have

Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

So some of Trump's staff is subpoenaed...he claims Executive Privilege...but rather than let the courts decide who is right and who is wrong...the Left moves to impeach immediately before the courts can rule on that?

Who's the real threat to the Constitution here? A President invoking something that other Presidents before him have invoked...or Democrats in Congress that have decided that THEY are the ones who will decide what is legal and what is a criminal act? So who changed the Constitution to exclude the Supreme Court? Not Trump.

There was no court involved, lying con tool.

 

[Faun]

Prove Joe did something to get him that job....

You really think someone with zero experience with either the Ukraine or the natural gas industry...someone with a history of drug abuse...get's hired at that pay rate for that job if his father ISN'T the Vice President?

IT'S PATENTLY OBVIOUS WHY HUNTER BIDEN GOT THAT JOB!

Stop lying, ya lying con tool. You insinuated his father got him that job. Not that Hunter got it himself because of who his father was.

I didn't "insinuate" anything! I stated quite clearly that the only reason Hunter Biden got THAT job among many of his jobs was because of who his father is. Your claim that Hunter Biden "got it himself" is laughable!

I said he got the job himself because his father was VP.

You lied and said his father got him the job.

I can't believe THAT'S what you're going with, Faun! Let me ask you this then...do you think Joe Biden knew that his son was getting that position on the board of Burisma? Because if he did...then Joe Biden knew EXACTLY what was going on! His son was being paid off in the hope that it would influence him. Now the only question that needs to be answered is whether or not Burisma received anything for all of that money that they paid to the Biden family which is one of the things that Donald Trump asked that the Ukrainian President look into!

Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.

 

[Wapasha]

Zelensky expressed interest in buying missiles from us and Trump asked for favors. That's a bribe.

Trump never attached conditions for "buying missiles from us" with his favor. So no, not a bribe.

 

[Dana7360]

Where do you Trumpublicans (I'd call ya conservatives but ya ain't) get your news anyway? There were SEVERAL witnesses who were on these calls and smack-dab in the middle of Rudy and Donald's "drug deal".

It should also be noted that Donnie didn't release a "transcript" - We got the Billy Barr SUMMARY which stated right up top that it wasn't a verbatim transcript. It was full of ellipses (dot dot dot) ... meaning paragraphs were cut short. The "transcript" got worm-holed away on a super-secret server.

Learn something .. at SOME point - PLEASE

Items were redacted from the transcript as they almost always ARE when sensitive topics are being discussed between nations and leaders. What's telling about the transcript is that it contradicts what Adam Schiff was claiming took place during the phone call and backs up both President Trump and the Ukrainian President's claims that no quid pro quo took place! Schiff was shown once again to be a liar...something he's been caught at repeatedly...yet HE was the chosen to run the House investigation?

You're not to be taken seriously. Trump, Rudy, and Mulvaney all admitted it was a quid pro quo in broad daylight. Sondland admitted that it was a quid pro quo. Trump has openly said he'd illegally take dirt from a foreign government in a heartbeat. He even asked China to investigate the Bidens.

Sensitive my ass. Only in the sense that it exposed this president's criminality. And again, THERE WAS NO "TRANSCRIPT".

What a crock. Nobody has admitted there was quid pro quo! It's been alleged by the Left but what the House "trial" made abundantly clear is that you have zero PROOF that the aid was contingent on the Ukrainian President investigating the Biden's!

Meet nobody...

Its utterly pathetic the way people can get on national TV and say it was a quid pro quo -- and you sycophants still pretend it didnt happen....

I repeat...where in any of THAT did Mulvaney admit there was quid pro quo! I heard two different reporters try to put those words in his mouth and both times Mulvaney explained why there wasn't quid pro quo!

Meet another mr quid pro quo. Mulvaney wasn't the only person to tell the world yes there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland clearly says yes there was a quid pro quo.

Just denying that there was a quid pro quo doesn't make that true.

 

[Wapasha]

Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.

And you never seek to investigate anything, which is why all these corrupt politicians feel comfortable with using their positions in high government office to swing all kinds of high paying no-show jobs for their friends, family members and campaign donors.

When did people like you become sellouts to government corruption and crony capitalism?

 

[hadit]

Uhh, there is the same kind of "proof" you guys use to claim Trump tried to use Ukraine to benefit himself. There is, for example, no way that Biden's son could have gotten that very lucrative job if Biden was not VP.

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him. There is zero evidence of the latter which is what lying con tools are claiming with nothing to back that up.

And the there certainly is evidence Impeached Trump solicited a foreign national for campaign help. It's revealed in his phone call with Zelensky where he asked the Ukrainian president to look into his political rival.

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

If you have evidence someone else got him they job, prove it...

That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

 

[Faun]

Zelensky expressed interest in buying missiles from us and Trump asked for favors. That's a bribe.

Trump never attached conditions for "buying missiles from us" with his favor. So no, not a bribe.

Conditions are irrelevant in terms of the law. The law simply states one cannot solicit campaign help from a foreign national.

 

[Wapasha]

Meet another mr quid pro quo. Mulvaney wasn't the only person to tell the world yes there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland clearly says yes there was a quid pro quo.

Just denying that there was a quid pro quo doesn't make that true.

Sondland??? The man who was made a fool of, when he had to admit he made assertions of events which never took place all based upon his own presumptions, which he alone falsely assumed to be fact? The man is a freaking idiot, a fool, and a moron.

 

[Mac-7]

The cops usually dont say “we think he’s guilty but dont have time to gather the evidence. So just take him to court and we’ll wing it”

Law enforcement doesn't face witnesses who get away with refusing to honor subpoenas. They lock them up.

Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have

Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

 

[Mac-7]

They concocted a phony russia collusion witchhunt

a) they did no such thing as revealed in the IG report.

b) you said Schumer warned him they would strike back. He said that in the weeks leading up to his inauguration. Intel agencies did not "concoct" any such thing.

We know the intel rats did concoct

Oh? What did they "concoct" after Schumer said what he said?

The trump-russia collusion hoax

That wasn't a hoax according to the IG report and even what you speak of happened before Schumer said what he said.

Trump did nothing wrong and the Derp State knew it

that made it a hoax

 

[Faun]

Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.

And you never seek to investigate anything, which is why all these corrupt politicians feel comfortable with using their positions in high government office to swing all kinds of high paying no-show jobs for their friends, family members and campaign donors.

When did people like you become sellouts to government corruption and crony capitalism?

Then impeached Trump should have followed legal protocol to have him investigated. Instead, he abused the power of his office by violating a law which prohibits soliciting a foreign national to investigate political rivals.

Hysterically, it will be you people freaking out over this is if it's allowed to stand and a Democrat president running for re-election some day starts getting foreign leaders to investigate all of their Republican competitors.

 

[Mac-7]

Brennan, Clapper and Comey did exactly that as was revealed in the IG report!

The IG report stated the reasons to investigate potential collusion were "justified."

The AG and special criminal investigator durham disagreed

So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation