GAO rules Trump broke the law

[kyzr]

Too bad Coldfax isn't as interest in knowing why so much of this impeachment process had to be conducted in secrecy, behind closed doors, using shady methods, divisiveness, partisanship and gestapo methods-- -- -- -- not with the public, not with the cameras, but with many of other representatives and senators which had a responsibility and were involved in the hearings to see to it they were conducted properly, fairly and thoroughly for all.

Don’t be so over dramatic. There were closed door sessions and open door sessions. This isn’t any different than any other investigation and is done for good reason. Transcripts were published. It wasn’t unusual at all. You’re just told that it was.

Sure. Right, you lying fucking creep! Just like ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION, you lying cocksucker, where many of the people ACTUALLY ON THE BOARD of the investigation themselves trying to adjudicate the hearings were never allowed to even know who the CENTRAL FIGURE of their investigation was around which THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED! Never saw him, never met him, can't ask him one damn question, not even with a bag over his head or a voice changer in a darkened room, no cross-examination of his testimony to test its veracity, --- --- for that matter, have to take Schiff's word the guy really even exists and is a person who might have actually been able to walk past the president and eavesdrop on his phone calls! Nothing unusual at all, right, asshole? Is that why rep after rep excoriated Schiff of the congress floor one after the other ripping him a new ass pissed as hell over it, you twat?!

You're an even bigger lying, cocksucking piece of shitt than Adam Schitt is, and I hope McConnell pounds the democrats a new mud hole and screws them to the wall with just as much bullshit totally unfair, partisan and one-sided telling all of the Dems to SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT UP as they all cry unfair so that Trump can walk free and give the moon to Nancy. I mean literally MOON HER. Then she can take one of her pens and stick THAT up her ass, too.

Heard It From a Friend Who, Heard It From a...Impeachment Telephone Game (REO Speedwagon Parody)

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

 

[Rambunctious]

Where the hell do you see that? It’s not in her statement. Did you butcher this passage:

Let me ask you something out of pure curiousness....why are you so put out that the Ukraine had to wait?...why are you not worried about the misuse of American aid?....why are you more concerned about Trump's actions then you are Joe Biden's?....

 

[colfax_m]

Don’t be so over dramatic. There were closed door sessions and open door sessions. This isn’t any different than any other investigation and is done for good reason. Transcripts were published. It wasn’t unusual at all. You’re just told that it was.

Sure. Right, you lying fucking creep! Just like ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION, you lying cocksucker, where many of the people ACTUALLY ON THE BOARD of the investigation themselves trying to adjudicate the hearings were never allowed to even know who the CENTRAL FIGURE of their investigation was around which THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED! Never saw him, never met him, can't ask him one damn question, not even with a bag over his head or a voice changer in a darkened room, no cross-examination of his testimony to test its veracity, --- --- for that matter, have to take Schiff's word the guy really even exists and is a person who might have actually been able to walk past the president and eavesdrop on his phone calls! Nothing unusual at all, right, asshole? Is that why rep after rep excoriated Schiff of the congress floor one after the other ripping him a new ass pissed as hell over it, you twat?!

You're an even bigger lying, cocksucking piece of shitt than Adam Schitt is, and I hope McConnell pounds the democrats a new mud hole and screws them to the wall with just as much bullshit totally unfair, partisan and one-sided telling all of the Dems to SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT UP as they all cry unfair so that Trump can walk free and give the moon to Nancy. I mean literally MOON HER. Then she can take one of her pens and stick THAT up her ass, too.

Heard It From a Friend Who, Heard It From a...Impeachment Telephone Game (REO Speedwagon Parody)

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sure. Right, you lying fucking creep! Just like ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION, you lying cocksucker, where many of the people ACTUALLY ON THE BOARD of the investigation themselves trying to adjudicate the hearings were never allowed to even know who the CENTRAL FIGURE of their investigation was around which THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED! Never saw him, never met him, can't ask him one damn question, not even with a bag over his head or a voice changer in a darkened room, no cross-examination of his testimony to test its veracity, --- --- for that matter, have to take Schiff's word the guy really even exists and is a person who might have actually been able to walk past the president and eavesdrop on his phone calls! Nothing unusual at all, right, asshole? Is that why rep after rep excoriated Schiff of the congress floor one after the other ripping him a new ass pissed as hell over it, you twat?!

You're an even bigger lying, cocksucking piece of shitt than Adam Schitt is, and I hope McConnell pounds the democrats a new mud hole and screws them to the wall with just as much bullshit totally unfair, partisan and one-sided telling all of the Dems to SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT UP as they all cry unfair so that Trump can walk free and give the moon to Nancy. I mean literally MOON HER. Then she can take one of her pens and stick THAT up her ass, too.

Heard It From a Friend Who, Heard It From a...Impeachment Telephone Game (REO Speedwagon Parody)

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

Then you must have disliked the house inquiry because Trump wasn't allowed to call witnesses....it was held in the basement of the Capitol away from the eyes of the people....

 

[colfax_m]

Where the hell do you see that? It’s not in her statement. Did you butcher this passage:

Let me ask you something out of pure curiousness....why are you so put out that the Ukraine had to wait?...why are you not worried about the misuse of American aid?....why are you more concerned about Trump's actions then you are Joe Biden's?....

I’d be worried about Biden’s actions if I thought there was anything to them. There isn’t. Nothing about the story we are told by Trump’s side makes sense.

Trump is using the government to persecute his opponent. That is some serious corruption and an embarrassment to our country. We are supposed to be better than that.

Now, to be honest, I don’t care if Ukraine had to wait a bit for their aid. By you know who did care? Ukraine. Trump had leverage and he knew what he wanted. He wanted a favor.

 

[colfax_m]

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

Then you must have disliked the house inquiry because Trump wasn't allowed to call witnesses....it was held in the basement of the Capitol away from the eyes of the people....

Trump was allowed to call witnesses before the judiciary.
He chose not to. Not my fault.

 

[Rambunctious]

I’d be worried about Biden’s actions if I thought there was anything to them. There isn’t. Nothing about the story we are told by Trump’s side makes sense

So your vice president and other leaders can get great jobs for their family by giving to companies and nations what they want? Isn't that a quid pro quo?...

Trump is using the government to persecute his opponent.

So Joe can evade an investigation by running for president?....and the current president can't do anything about it?....are you kidding?...

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump was allowed to call witnesses before the judiciary.
He chose not to. Not my fault.

He wasn't allowed to call any witness he wanted...he should have been able to call witnesses that were involved with the onset of this joke of an inquiry...like Schiff and his whistle blower....fair is fair....now the house wants the senate to do their dirty work?...forget it...its too late...either they had the goods on Trump or they didn't...if they did not then what is this?....

 

[colfax_m]

So your vice president and other leaders can get great jobs for their family by giving to companies and nations what they want? Isn't that a quid pro quo?...

Well, no. If there were any evidence Hunter Biden’s employment was contingent on Joe Biden doing something specific, that’d be a problem. The thing is, there’s zero evidence that happened.

So Joe can evade an investigation by running for president?....and the current president can't do anything about it?....are you kidding?...

Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.

 

[kyzr]

Sure. Right, you lying fucking creep! Just like ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION, you lying cocksucker, where many of the people ACTUALLY ON THE BOARD of the investigation themselves trying to adjudicate the hearings were never allowed to even know who the CENTRAL FIGURE of their investigation was around which THE ENTIRE CASE WAS BASED! Never saw him, never met him, can't ask him one damn question, not even with a bag over his head or a voice changer in a darkened room, no cross-examination of his testimony to test its veracity, --- --- for that matter, have to take Schiff's word the guy really even exists and is a person who might have actually been able to walk past the president and eavesdrop on his phone calls! Nothing unusual at all, right, asshole? Is that why rep after rep excoriated Schiff of the congress floor one after the other ripping him a new ass pissed as hell over it, you twat?!

You're an even bigger lying, cocksucking piece of shitt than Adam Schitt is, and I hope McConnell pounds the democrats a new mud hole and screws them to the wall with just as much bullshit totally unfair, partisan and one-sided telling all of the Dems to SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT UP as they all cry unfair so that Trump can walk free and give the moon to Nancy. I mean literally MOON HER. Then she can take one of her pens and stick THAT up her ass, too.

Heard It From a Friend Who, Heard It From a...Impeachment Telephone Game (REO Speedwagon Parody)

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

 

[Zorro!]

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

His campaign promises are irrelevant in the fact of constitutional limitations on his power as president.

What limited constitutional power did he abuse?...the Ukraine got their money on time...so what is this?....

Pathetic desperation by pathetically desperate Democrats who hope their Abuse of Power antics will affect the 2020 election. It probably will, but not the way they want it to!

 

[colfax_m]

The whistleblower’s testimony is irrelevant. It’s nothing but a distraction. Just something to whine about.

That’s what you do when you can’t argue the facts.

You have a very foul mouth.

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

1. That’s your opinion and is not based on any actual requirement.
2. I think he deserves a fair trial on all the evidence period. Limiting evidence artificially is not fair.
3. Why? There’s no reason. That’s never been the way impeachment or any criminal trial is run.

Seems to me you just want to avoid hearing all the evidence.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Once again we have the Left trying to pretend opinion is fact. In America nobody is guilty of anything until convicted in an actual court; not in somebody's opinion. Put up or shut up.

 

[kyzr]

The WB's testimony is relevant.
It goes to the heart of the matter, which is the democrats' hatred of Trump, and the deep state's efforts to do anything to disrupt his presidency.
Who put the WB (Ciaramella) into his position in the WH? (Brennan)
Who did the WB go to to have the complaint written in legalese? (Schiff)
Why was the WB complaint considered "credible" when technically it wasn't? (IGIC was biased)
How did a low level WB complaint even have an effect on the president? The WB law only applies to DNI level and below.
There are many questions that the WB should answer under oath.

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

1. That’s your opinion and is not based on any actual requirement.
2. I think he deserves a fair trial on all the evidence period. Limiting evidence artificially is not fair.
3. Why? There’s no reason. That’s never been the way impeachment or any criminal trial is run.

Seems to me you just want to avoid hearing all the evidence.

1. The GOP senate is not going to finish the investigation that the House should have done, period.
2. The evidence that the Articles are based on are all that will be allowed. The senate doesn't have time to go fishing.
3. The bottom-line is that there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses.
Crying Chuck will be sobbing again, someone should send him a funny crying towel.

 

[colfax_m]

None of the issues you’ve raised would have any bearing on the actions of the president or the facts of the matter. The whistleblower is not central to the impeachment. Trump is. This is about Trump’s behavior.

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

1. That’s your opinion and is not based on any actual requirement.
2. I think he deserves a fair trial on all the evidence period. Limiting evidence artificially is not fair.
3. Why? There’s no reason. That’s never been the way impeachment or any criminal trial is run.

Seems to me you just want to avoid hearing all the evidence.

1. The GOP senate is not going to finish the investigation that the House should have done, period.
2. The evidence that the Articles are based on are all that will be allowed. The senate doesn't have time to go fishing.
3. The bottom-line is that there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses.
Crying Chuck will be sobbing again, someone should send him a funny crying towel.

The decision to disallow any additional evidence is an arbitrary decision made to protect the president. There is no other reason.

So much for having a fair trial.

 

[kyzr]

Saw one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Ray on Outnumbered. He is very sharp.
1. The object is to give Trump a fair trial
2. If the prosecution needs more evidence or witnesses to make their case...too bad.
3. If the Articles are not valid, or are unconstitutional, they need to be dismissed.
4. I saw a lot of lawyers and talking heads on TV Sunday, but Robert Ray was the most decisive and convincing.
5. I'm optimistic that this impeachment trial will be over sooner rather than later.

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

1. That’s your opinion and is not based on any actual requirement.
2. I think he deserves a fair trial on all the evidence period. Limiting evidence artificially is not fair.
3. Why? There’s no reason. That’s never been the way impeachment or any criminal trial is run.

Seems to me you just want to avoid hearing all the evidence.

1. The GOP senate is not going to finish the investigation that the House should have done, period.
2. The evidence that the Articles are based on are all that will be allowed. The senate doesn't have time to go fishing.
3. The bottom-line is that there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses.
Crying Chuck will be sobbing again, someone should send him a funny crying towel.

The decision to disallow any additional evidence is an arbitrary decision made to protect the president. There is no other reason.

So much for having a fair trial.

The trial will be fair. The House had the opportunity to subpoena anyone they wanted. They chose not to, that's on them.
Mitch doesn't want a circus, he wants the trial over ASAP so he can get back to work.
A quick trial also stuffs Nancy's "delay" ploy to keep the senators glued to their seats so that they can't campaign and Biden wins the nomination.
Mitch wins-wins-wins.

 

[Rambunctious]

Well, no. If there were any evidence Hunter Biden’s employment was contingent on Joe Biden doing something specific, that’d be a problem. The thing is, there’s zero evidence that happened.

Joe Biden told the former Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company Joe worked for or they wouldn't get their aid and he finished his story by saying Obama was on board when the Ukrainian president threatened to inform Obama...what do you call that?...

Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.

I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...

 

[The Original Tree]

This thread, like the impeachment is a hoax.

Nothing happens as Congress has no authority over Foreign Policy. HR-1 should be dismissed as an improperly formed Resolution.

Here are Several cases where Congress did nothing in matters where a member of the Executive Branch threatened to with hold or delay foreign aid.

1.) Joe Biden threatens to with hold Aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fires the prosecutor investigating his son.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor.
Congress takes no Action.

2.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Guatemala unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Guatemala complies
Congress takes no Action.

3.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Honduras unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Honduras complies
Congress takes no Action.

4.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to El Salvador unless they enforce their own immigration law.

El Salvador complies
Congress takes no Action.

5.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Mexico unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Mexico complies
Congress takes no Action.

6.) President Trump asks the Government of Ukraine to look in to corruption per the joint Anti-Corruption treaty between us.

Ukraine takes no action.
The Pelosi Lead House of Representatives goes postal and demands impeachment and investigations after spending 3 years investigating Russian Collusion only to have it proven to be a hoax, and failing at impeachment after The Mueller Report turned out to be a Dud.

One wonders why there was such an interest in Ukraine and money it was getting that even The Slightest Delay sent Pelosi and Friends in to epileptic fits.

My conclusion?

The Obama Administration and Friends, had insider trading going on in The Ukraine, and they lost a ton of money over the delay of Foreign Aid, and that is why they cared at all about it.

Well, no. If there were any evidence Hunter Biden’s employment was contingent on Joe Biden doing something specific, that’d be a problem. The thing is, there’s zero evidence that happened.

Joe Biden told the former Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company Joe worked for or they wouldn't get their aid and he finished his story by saying Obama was on board when the Ukrainian president threatened to inform Obama...what do you call that?...

Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.

I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...

 

[colfax_m]

Joe Biden told the former Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company Joe worked for or they wouldn't get their aid and he finished his story by saying Obama was on board when the Ukrainian president threatened to inform Obama...what do you call that?...

I call it a lie. No one in the State Dept thought Shokin was doing anything about Burisma or any other corrupt oligarch. That’s why they wanted him out.

I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...

I’m not. The DoJ has been distancing themselves from Trump’s drug deal since the beginning. The only people really digging into this are Trump’s lackeys, some of which are in very hot water.

 

[colfax_m]

I agree a fair trial is best. However, it should be fair for both the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution wants to call a witness, it is unfair to deny them that.

Of course, Trump’s team has taken an extremely fringe position about what constitutes and impeachable offense. It is one that does not stand up to scrutiny of the original intent or precedent.

We disagree.
1. It was the House's job to investigate and gather enough evidence to prove their case since they voted for impeachment.
2. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a fair trial based on the evidence the Articles are based on.
3. If the prosecution wants to call new witnesses they should have thought of that before they rushed the Articles thru, and then sat on them for a month.
4. The evidence is the evidence, sink or swim with it, as is. The senate has more work to do than to complete the House's investigations.
5. IMHO the trial will be over sooner rather than later after seeing the "managing lawyers" for both sides.

1. That’s your opinion and is not based on any actual requirement.
2. I think he deserves a fair trial on all the evidence period. Limiting evidence artificially is not fair.
3. Why? There’s no reason. That’s never been the way impeachment or any criminal trial is run.

Seems to me you just want to avoid hearing all the evidence.

1. The GOP senate is not going to finish the investigation that the House should have done, period.
2. The evidence that the Articles are based on are all that will be allowed. The senate doesn't have time to go fishing.
3. The bottom-line is that there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses.
Crying Chuck will be sobbing again, someone should send him a funny crying towel.

The decision to disallow any additional evidence is an arbitrary decision made to protect the president. There is no other reason.

So much for having a fair trial.

The trial will be fair. The House had the opportunity to subpoena anyone they wanted. They chose not to, that's on them.
Mitch doesn't want a circus, he wants the trial over ASAP so he can get back to work.
A quick trial also stuffs Nancy's "delay" ploy to keep the senators glued to their seats so that they can't campaign and Biden wins the nomination.
Mitch wins-wins-wins.

The House produced many subpoenas. They were all ignored. They weren’t challenged. They were just thrown in the trash. But that has nothing to do with the trial. What’s fair about refusing the ability to call witnesses in the trial?

Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?