Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Cellblock2429]

The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".

Look that up and get back to me.

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

 

[Crepitus]

You funny mans.

It's well within Trump's authority to request aid with an investigation. Biden himself had a hand in the treaty.

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".

Look that up and get back to me.

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

 

[Crepitus]

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

1 no evidence
2 the witnesses said "no quid pro quo"
3 the Ukrain president said to pressure

Weeks worth of evidence
Everybody said "quid pro quo".
Ukrainian president needed his military aid.

Lies.

Facts.

It's ok though, I know you tRumplings can't tell the difference

Lies.

As I said, I am aware you cannot tell the difference.

 

[Crepitus]

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".

Look that up and get back to me.

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

/----/ Grand Juries are held in secret - not in public on the floor of Congress and televised on national TV. No one is calling it a Grand Jury except you trying to act better educated than everyone else?
How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

 

[Uncensored2008]

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

You're such a fucking liar.

Yes, the TRANSCRIPT destroyed your newest conspiracy theory.

Tell me Comrade, didn't you Stalinists DEMAND that intelligence officials MUST BE BELIEVED, yet here you are calling the 6 intelligence officers who compiled the TRANSCRIPT liars. Is this because they were on the call, unlike the performers Lying Schitt had in the Star Chamber and at the Show Trial? Doesn't that make you a traitor, as you Stalinists called the President when he doubted intelligence agents like KGB John Brennan and James Clapper? (who turned out to be out to get him.)

So tell me, do you personally want this to go to the Senate? Do you think it will help the Communist party if it does?

 

[Cellblock2429]

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

/----/ "I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released.'
It's the transcript. You can call it a rough summary, call it a pecan pie, call it the Bible -all you want. It doesn't make it true. You have zero evidence to prove your point.

 

[Crepitus]

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

/----/ Grand Juries are held in secret - not in public on the floor of Congress and televised on national TV. No one is calling it a Grand Jury except you trying to act better educated than everyone else?
How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Your inability to comprehend my example is not my problem.

If you can look up grand juries then you can look up impeachment and gain an understanding of how it works.

The fact that you have not means you are wilfully ignorant. Which is the worst kind.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trump is doing nothing that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (to name just a few Presidents!) have done.

That is just plain factually inaccurate. No president has ever made the non-existent claim of blanket privilege in order to justify obstructing a congressional investigation before Trump.

When has the Trump Administration claimed "blanket privilege"? They've simply refused to cede their Constitutionally protected rights to Adam Schiff. The FACT is...the Obama Administration claimed Executive Privilege far more than the Trump Administration!

 

[Crepitus]

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

You're such a fucking liar.

Yes, the TRANSCRIPT destroyed your newest conspiracy theory.

Tell me Comrade, didn't you Stalinists DEMAND that intelligence officials MUST BE BELIEVED, yet here you are calling the 6 intelligence officers who compiled the TRANSCRIPT liars. Is this because they were on the call, unlike the performers Lying Schitt had in the Star Chamber and at the Show Trial? Doesn't that make you a traitor, as you Stalinists called the President when he doubted intelligence agents like KGB John Brennan and James Clapper? (who turned out to be out to get him.)

So tell me, do you personally want this to go to the Senate? Do you think it will help the Communist party if it does?

Your perception of reality seems to be somewhat alternative to the standard version that most of us share.

 

[Crepitus]

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

/----/ "I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released.'
It's the transcript. You can call it a rough summary, call it a pecan pie, call it the Bible -all you want. It doesn't make it true. You have zero evidence to prove your point.

Zero evidence?

Only if you are blind, dear, and dumb. (Not mute dumb, the other kind)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".

Look that up and get back to me.

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

Unfortunately, it does not work like that. I thought it did too. But I was watching Laura's show the other night on that one-sided evil news network, She and her guests stated differently. FF to about the 13:00 min time line in the video.

insolito

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

/----/ "I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released.'
It's the transcript. You can call it a rough summary, call it a pecan pie, call it the Bible -all you want. It doesn't make it true. You have zero evidence to prove your point.

Zero evidence?

Only if you are blind, dear, and dumb. (Not mute dumb, the other kind)

/—-/ If Shytface had anything credible, they would have had the impeachment vote already. All he has is opinion, hearsay and wishful thinking. Trump has the transcript.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

You're such a fucking liar.

Yes, the TRANSCRIPT destroyed your newest conspiracy theory.

Tell me Comrade, didn't you Stalinists DEMAND that intelligence officials MUST BE BELIEVED, yet here you are calling the 6 intelligence officers who compiled the TRANSCRIPT liars. Is this because they were on the call, unlike the performers Lying Schitt had in the Star Chamber and at the Show Trial? Doesn't that make you a traitor, as you Stalinists called the President when he doubted intelligence agents like KGB John Brennan and James Clapper? (who turned out to be out to get him.)

So tell me, do you personally want this to go to the Senate? Do you think it will help the Communist party if it does?

Your perception of reality seems to be somewhat alternative to the standard version that most of us share.

/—-/ You can’t refute the transcript. All you can do is trash it and try to convince everyone that you know more than the rest of us. So show the proof the transcript isn’t legit.

 

[Cellblock2429]

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

/----/ Grand Juries are held in secret - not in public on the floor of Congress and televised on national TV. No one is calling it a Grand Jury except you trying to act better educated than everyone else?
How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Your inability to comprehend my example is not my problem.

If you can look up grand juries then you can look up impeachment and gain an understanding of how it works.

The fact that you have not means you are wilfully ignorant. Which is the worst kind.

/—-/ Grand juries are held in private. Anyone leaking quotes is guilty of a crime. Shytface leaked testimony almost daily. He held hearings in public. Why are you being obtuse?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

/----/ Grand Juries are held in secret - not in public on the floor of Congress and televised on national TV. No one is calling it a Grand Jury except you trying to act better educated than everyone else?
How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Your inability to comprehend my example is not my problem.

If you can look up grand juries then you can look up impeachment and gain an understanding of how it works.

The fact that you have not means you are wilfully ignorant. Which is the worst kind.

/—-/ Grand juries are held in private. Anyone leaking quotes is guilty of a crime. Shytface leaked testimony almost daily. He held hearings in public. Why are you being obtuse?

A better comparison would be the grand jury trial was equal to their basement hearings. The trial was actually the inquiry which in this case, the defense was not allowed to call their witnesses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

/----/ "I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released.'
It's the transcript. You can call it a rough summary, call it a pecan pie, call it the Bible -all you want. It doesn't make it true. You have zero evidence to prove your point.

Zero evidence?

Only if you are blind, dear, and dumb. (Not mute dumb, the other kind)

/—-/ If Shytface had anything credible, they would have had the impeachment vote already. All he has is opinion, hearsay and wishful thinking. Trump has the transcript.

Democrats don't do anything underhanded until they look at the polls first. I think that's what they are doing now, and the polls don't look that good for them.

Since the first day of the inquiry, they've been losing television audience. Most polls show that there is a decreasing amount of citizens that approve of impeachment, particularly Independents, because of how phony the charges are.

I think at this point, they'd be foolish to impeach Trump now. They would either have to announce they don't have the votes, or have the vote and have certain Democrats vote against it.

 

[lennypartiv]

Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Can Democrats be any more dishonest about what was said on the phone call?

 

[Crepitus]

1. It's not a transcript.

2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.

/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.

Huh? I'm talking about the rough summary of the call the Whitehouse released. We all know what it says, and what it says confirms the whistleblower complaint. It might as well be a confession.

You're such a fucking liar.

Yes, the TRANSCRIPT destroyed your newest conspiracy theory.

Tell me Comrade, didn't you Stalinists DEMAND that intelligence officials MUST BE BELIEVED, yet here you are calling the 6 intelligence officers who compiled the TRANSCRIPT liars. Is this because they were on the call, unlike the performers Lying Schitt had in the Star Chamber and at the Show Trial? Doesn't that make you a traitor, as you Stalinists called the President when he doubted intelligence agents like KGB John Brennan and James Clapper? (who turned out to be out to get him.)

So tell me, do you personally want this to go to the Senate? Do you think it will help the Communist party if it does?

Your perception of reality seems to be somewhat alternative to the standard version that most of us share.

/—-/ You can’t refute the transcript. All you can do is trash it and try to convince everyone that you know more than the rest of us. So show the proof the transcript isn’t legit.

I don't need to refute it. It is proof of the crime.

 

[Crepitus]

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

You need to look at how this process works. We just finished the grand jury phase. If an indictment is handed down and it goes to trial the defense can call all the witnesses it wants.

However they pretty badly handicapped themselves with all this refusal to testify and hand over documents crap.

/----/ Grand Juries are held in secret - not in public on the floor of Congress and televised on national TV. No one is calling it a Grand Jury except you trying to act better educated than everyone else?
How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Your inability to comprehend my example is not my problem.

If you can look up grand juries then you can look up impeachment and gain an understanding of how it works.

The fact that you have not means you are wilfully ignorant. Which is the worst kind.

/—-/ Grand juries are held in private. Anyone leaking quotes is guilty of a crime. Shytface leaked testimony almost daily. He held hearings in public. Why are you being obtuse?

A better comparison would be the grand jury trial was equal to their basement hearings. The trial was actually the inquiry which in this case, the defense was not allowed to call their witnesses.

The trial will happen in the senate.