Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.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.
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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.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.
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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
There was no need to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, because they had already done that.
Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”
The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.
“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.
Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.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.
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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
There was no need to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, because they had already done that.
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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
Oh? What witnesses was Bill Clinton able to have called while Ken Starr secretly investigated him?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?....Trump was allowed to call witnesses before the judiciary.
He chose not to. Not my fault.
"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"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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
You are lying or majorly misinformed by a biased media...."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"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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
Liar. Joe did not work for any company Shokin was investigating. And Shokin wasn't actively investigating any company Joe's son worked for either.
You are the only one saying this...."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"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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
Liar. Joe did not work for any company Shokin was investigating. And Shokin wasn't actively investigating any company Joe's son worked for either.
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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
1. The House subpoenas weren't ignored, or trashed, they were contested in court, and the House withdrew them, since they were low on time, like for Kupperman.
House withdraws subpoena for White House official who asked court to decide if he should testify - CNNPolitics
2. The trial only needs to be fair to the accused. The House impeachment process was very unfair to Trump. It was a partisan Schitt show and you know it. So please don't try to whine for "fairness" in the senate. Mitch has the partisan advantage and knows how to use it.
3. The "truth" is that the impeachment was a partisan ploy by democrats to hurt Trump, and it will be dismissed quickly in the senate.
4. The election will decide things, Bloomburg just pledged $6.5b to beat Trump.
Michael Bloomberg presidential bid could cost $6.5 billion if he employs tactics from New York campaigns
Ending corruption is beneficial for America and the American people...if politicians are landing impossible employment with impossible wages attached for their family members they must be giving something in return...and that is a textbook example of corruption....Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
You are lying or majorly misinformed by a biased media...."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"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?...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.
I'm sure aspects of the Biden fiasco are being investigated...Uh, no. But if Biden needs to be investigated, the DoJ should be doing it. Not some politician. Keep politics out of justice.
Liar. Joe did not work for any company Shokin was investigating. And Shokin wasn't actively investigating any company Joe's son worked for either.
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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
1. The House subpoenas weren't ignored, or trashed, they were contested in court, and the House withdrew them, since they were low on time, like for Kupperman.
House withdraws subpoena for White House official who asked court to decide if he should testify - CNNPolitics
2. The trial only needs to be fair to the accused. The House impeachment process was very unfair to Trump. It was a partisan Schitt show and you know it. So please don't try to whine for "fairness" in the senate. Mitch has the partisan advantage and knows how to use it.
3. The "truth" is that the impeachment was a partisan ploy by democrats to hurt Trump, and it will be dismissed quickly in the senate.
4. The election will decide things, Bloomburg just pledged $6.5b to beat Trump.
Michael Bloomberg presidential bid could cost $6.5 billion if he employs tactics from New York campaigns
Ending corruption is beneficial for America and the American people...if politicians are landing impossible employment with impossible wages attached for their family members they must be giving something in return...and that is a textbook example of corruption....Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
The proper punishment for ignoring a congressional subpoena is to hold the president in contempt...not impeach him....there is no high crime or misdemeanor in the articles...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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
1. The House subpoenas weren't ignored, or trashed, they were contested in court, and the House withdrew them, since they were low on time, like for Kupperman.
House withdraws subpoena for White House official who asked court to decide if he should testify - CNNPolitics
2. The trial only needs to be fair to the accused. The House impeachment process was very unfair to Trump. It was a partisan Schitt show and you know it. So please don't try to whine for "fairness" in the senate. Mitch has the partisan advantage and knows how to use it.
3. The "truth" is that the impeachment was a partisan ploy by democrats to hurt Trump, and it will be dismissed quickly in the senate.
4. The election will decide things, Bloomburg just pledged $6.5b to beat Trump.
Michael Bloomberg presidential bid could cost $6.5 billion if he employs tactics from New York campaigns
The Trump administration contested zero subpoenas. They claimed no executive privilege. Dozens of subpoenas were thrown in the trash. Kupperman is the only person that challenged a subpoena and did so on his own accord. No other subpoenas were withdrawn.
A fair trial is not a fair trial if only one side gets honest treatment. McConnell is not conducting a fair trial. Imagine if a judge in a criminal trial refused to let the prosecution call witnesses and only let the defendant do so? Would you consider that fair?
I see no commitment to the truth here. Just an attempt to help Trump conceal his actions. It’s not going to be “dismantled”. That would imply that the allegations are proven false. It’s merely going to be white washed.
Burisma was under investigation....and Hunter worked for them....and Hunter's dad forced an end to that investigation....and come on man...we are talking about a guy that left a crack pipe in a rental car and got booted from the military for cocaine use and has a illegitimate kid he wants nothing to do with....and knows nothing about what the company does....really nice choice of a guy to pay millions of dollars to....Ending corruption is beneficial for America and the American people...if politicians are landing impossible employment with impossible wages attached for their family members they must be giving something in return...and that is a textbook example of corruption....Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
You can’t even say what Hunter Biden did for Burisma that is so corrupt.
The proper punishment for ignoring a congressional subpoena is to hold the president in contempt...not impeach him....there is no high crime or misdemeanor in the articles...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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
1. The House subpoenas weren't ignored, or trashed, they were contested in court, and the House withdrew them, since they were low on time, like for Kupperman.
House withdraws subpoena for White House official who asked court to decide if he should testify - CNNPolitics
2. The trial only needs to be fair to the accused. The House impeachment process was very unfair to Trump. It was a partisan Schitt show and you know it. So please don't try to whine for "fairness" in the senate. Mitch has the partisan advantage and knows how to use it.
3. The "truth" is that the impeachment was a partisan ploy by democrats to hurt Trump, and it will be dismissed quickly in the senate.
4. The election will decide things, Bloomburg just pledged $6.5b to beat Trump.
Michael Bloomberg presidential bid could cost $6.5 billion if he employs tactics from New York campaigns
The Trump administration contested zero subpoenas. They claimed no executive privilege. Dozens of subpoenas were thrown in the trash. Kupperman is the only person that challenged a subpoena and did so on his own accord. No other subpoenas were withdrawn.
A fair trial is not a fair trial if only one side gets honest treatment. McConnell is not conducting a fair trial. Imagine if a judge in a criminal trial refused to let the prosecution call witnesses and only let the defendant do so? Would you consider that fair?
I see no commitment to the truth here. Just an attempt to help Trump conceal his actions. It’s not going to be “dismantled”. That would imply that the allegations are proven false. It’s merely going to be white washed.
So are you accusing Hunter Biden of taking money to get Shokin fired? Is that the accusation?Burisma was under investigation....and Hunter worked for them....and Hunter's dad forced an end to that investigation....and come on man...we are talking about a guy that left a crack pipe in a rental car and got booted from the military for cocaine use and has a illegitimate kid he wants nothing to do with....and knows nothing about what the company does....really nice choice of a guy to pay millions of dollars to....Ending corruption is beneficial for America and the American people...if politicians are landing impossible employment with impossible wages attached for their family members they must be giving something in return...and that is a textbook example of corruption....Withholding aid for the purpose of benefiting the United State people is OK.
But Withholding aid for the president's own personal purposes is an abuse of power.
You can’t even say what Hunter Biden did for Burisma that is so corrupt.
It is toothless but that is the proper course of action...for example Holder is still in contempt of congress...its toothless by design so the issue can be taken up by the people in the next election....like when Hillary lost and Trump won....The proper punishment for ignoring a congressional subpoena is to hold the president in contempt...not impeach him....there is no high crime or misdemeanor in the articles...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?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.
Don’t you think it’s in the country’s best interest to hear the truth before the election?
1. The House subpoenas weren't ignored, or trashed, they were contested in court, and the House withdrew them, since they were low on time, like for Kupperman.
House withdraws subpoena for White House official who asked court to decide if he should testify - CNNPolitics
2. The trial only needs to be fair to the accused. The House impeachment process was very unfair to Trump. It was a partisan Schitt show and you know it. So please don't try to whine for "fairness" in the senate. Mitch has the partisan advantage and knows how to use it.
3. The "truth" is that the impeachment was a partisan ploy by democrats to hurt Trump, and it will be dismissed quickly in the senate.
4. The election will decide things, Bloomburg just pledged $6.5b to beat Trump.
Michael Bloomberg presidential bid could cost $6.5 billion if he employs tactics from New York campaigns
The Trump administration contested zero subpoenas. They claimed no executive privilege. Dozens of subpoenas were thrown in the trash. Kupperman is the only person that challenged a subpoena and did so on his own accord. No other subpoenas were withdrawn.
A fair trial is not a fair trial if only one side gets honest treatment. McConnell is not conducting a fair trial. Imagine if a judge in a criminal trial refused to let the prosecution call witnesses and only let the defendant do so? Would you consider that fair?
I see no commitment to the truth here. Just an attempt to help Trump conceal his actions. It’s not going to be “dismantled”. That would imply that the allegations are proven false. It’s merely going to be white washed.
What does holding the president in contempt even mean? Sounds completely toothless to me.
