Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/—-/ Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[Crepitus]

/----/ 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.

/—-/ Thank you Captain Obvious.

Don't get snippy, Missy. You needed to be told.

 

[OKTexas]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Oh boy, another little commie that doesn't know that the president can claim executive privilege on documents and personnel. If there's a conflict, it's up to the courts to sort it out. Until Trump refuses to comply with a court order he hasn't obstructed a damn thing. Palousey said they don't have time to wait on the courts, this is too urgent, they they promptly went on vacation for 9 days. You fucking commies just crack me up.


.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/—-/ Thank you Captain Obvious.

Don't get snippy, Missy. You needed to be told.

/——/ And you need to be told there may well be NO trial after all, Tinkerbell.

Liz Peek: Regretful Democrats locked into Trump impeachment – and paying a price for it

Liz Peek: Regretful Democrats locked into Trump impeachment – and paying a price for it

 

[Wyatt earp]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

So biden can get away with a crime?

Oh yeah we forgot, Democrats in Congress can do legal insider trading

 

[Wyatt earp]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election. Besides, Trump knows there was no wrongdoing. That's why he wanted so badly for Ukraine to announce they were launching an investigation. That alone was enough for Don to use it to smear Biden with...........which is really what he was after. What Don understands well is The Following will believe anything he says. Plus, he has an entire media cohort, most of all Faux Noise, to reinforce everything he says no matter how untruthful it is.

So assassinating a political foe in a election year is ok through impeachment?

 

[berg80]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Oh boy, another little commie that doesn't know that the president can claim executive privilege on documents and personnel. If there's a conflict, it's up to the courts to sort it out. Until Trump refuses to comply with a court order he hasn't obstructed a damn thing. Palousey said they don't have time to wait on the courts, this is too urgent, they they promptly went on vacation for 9 days. You fucking commies just crack me up.


.

I can only hope one day you'll have the intellectual gravitas to make cogent arguments rather than accuse your more knowledgeable opponents of being "commies." I humbly suggest you read a book rather than mindlessly parroting the lies you hear Rushbo spew.
As I've said, everyone recognizes a prez's right to invoke EP in specific circumstances. What President Shithole is doing is abusing the protection afforded to him.

Trump is suggesting he's above the law — and you should be outraged

 

[Cellblock2429]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election. Besides, Trump knows there was no wrongdoing. That's why he wanted so badly for Ukraine to announce they were launching an investigation. That alone was enough for Don to use it to smear Biden with...........which is really what he was after. What Don understands well is The Following will believe anything he says. Plus, he has an entire media cohort, most of all Faux Noise, to reinforce everything he says no matter how untruthful it is.

/—-/ Biden has no chance of winning the nomination. If the President was going to use his office to sabotage a potential opponent, he go after Pocahontas or Buttplug.
The President is investigating Ukraine corruption and Old Joe’s kid is up to his neck in it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

An army of idiots like yourself and even members of congress who are pushing the "corruption" narrative against the Bidens as well as the GRU "Ukrainian interference in 2016" narrative. It's already working for Trump's benefit thanks to you, dope. You just aren't smart enough to see that you are the intended target of such efforts. It is you dopes who support and propogate such nonsense.
Useful idiots.

Well done, comrade.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

Yes, dope. He says quite clearly that Rudy was "expressing the desires of the POTUS".
Trump told Zalensky himself to "work with Rudy" on the call.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

Yes, dope. He says quite clearly that Rudy was "expressing the desires of the POTUS".
Trump told Zalensky himself to "work with Rudy" on the call.

Is Rudy being impeached or Trump? This is about Trump, and Trump's word is much more relevant than what Rudy said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

An army of idiots like yourself and even members of congress who are pushing the "corruption" narrative against the Bidens as well as the GRU "Ukrainian interference in 2016" narrative. It's already working for Trump's benefit thanks to you, dope. You just aren't smart enough to see that you are the intended target of such efforts. It is you dopes who support and propogate such nonsense.
Useful idiots.

Well done, comrade.

Could have saved yourself a little typing by just saying you can't answer the question either.

 

[berg80]

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

Yes, dope. He says quite clearly that Rudy was "expressing the desires of the POTUS".
Trump told Zalensky himself to "work with Rudy" on the call.

Is Rudy being impeached or Trump? This is about Trump, and Trump's word is much more relevant than what Rudy said.

Wait...........Trump's word? Please don't tell me you are still so gullible as to believe anything that inveterate liar says.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

Yes, dope. He says quite clearly that Rudy was "expressing the desires of the POTUS".
Trump told Zalensky himself to "work with Rudy" on the call.

Is Rudy being impeached or Trump? This is about Trump, and Trump's word is much more relevant than what Rudy said.

Wait...........Trump's word? Please don't tell me you are still so gullible as to believe anything that inveterate liar says.

Well if you can't believe him, then you can't believe his lawyer either, can you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

Your incompetence is noted.

Sondland was one of the people actually working on the ground to negotiate the investigation with the Ukranians, dope.

Don't take my word for it though.

Pay attention. He was talking about what Rudy said to him. But when he confronted Trump about it, here is what he testified to.

Yes, dope. He says quite clearly that Rudy was "expressing the desires of the POTUS".
Trump told Zalensky himself to "work with Rudy" on the call.

Is Rudy being impeached or Trump? This is about Trump, and Trump's word is much more relevant than what Rudy said.

Trump told all of the people from the State Dept to "talk to Rudy" when they asked for direction on Ukraine.
Trump told Zalensky to "work with Rudy" when he asked for his "favors" on the call

The WH withheld the funding. Not Rudy.

Now you're going to act as if Rudy went rogue and Trump knew nothing despite Trump directing them all to "talk to Rudy"?


Truly retarded.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

An army of idiots like yourself and even members of congress who are pushing the "corruption" narrative against the Bidens as well as the GRU "Ukrainian interference in 2016" narrative. It's already working for Trump's benefit thanks to you, dope. You just aren't smart enough to see that you are the intended target of such efforts. It is you dopes who support and propogate such nonsense.
Useful idiots.

Well done, comrade.

Could have saved yourself a little typing by just saying you can't answer the question either.

I did answer it, dope.

 

[toobfreak]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Must be nice to be a Derp living in a bubble!

• What's "lawful" about an investigation that only permits hostile witnesses?
• Why is it obstruction not to cooperate in your own lynching but NOT obstruction to limit the focus of a hearing to only reach ONE conclusion--- GUILT?
• Why is it "disingenuous" for the Repubs to make their case but not for the Democrats?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

An army of idiots like yourself and even members of congress who are pushing the "corruption" narrative against the Bidens as well as the GRU "Ukrainian interference in 2016" narrative. It's already working for Trump's benefit thanks to you, dope. You just aren't smart enough to see that you are the intended target of such efforts. It is you dopes who support and propogate such nonsense.
Useful idiots.

Well done, comrade.

Could have saved yourself a little typing by just saying you can't answer the question either.

I did answer it, dope.

If you did, I certainly didn't see it. I'm sure most didn't either. So try again: what personal benefit did Trump get for withholding aid?