McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[Cecilie1200]

then why didn't the democrats call them when they had their turn?

it's an appalling show of stupidity.

They did call them. Are you accusing me of stupidity when you didn’t know this very basic fact?

if they called their witnesses what the fuck are they bitching about more for then? they should have done this then.

stop being intentionally an ass. it's bad when when you do it unintentionally.

Because the witnesses never showed up.

I’ve been more polite to you than you deserve. Wash your mouth out with soap before I change my mind.

I'm betting money that Ice isn't exactly shaking in his boots over the fear that a peurile 3rd-rate wackjob like you is going to be mean to him.

Why y’all so nasty all the time?

'Cause y'all earn it all the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this is your speculation.

but for shits and grins, who decides foreign policy again?

The president has the ultimate authority which he can delegate at times.

Republicans aren’t calling witnesses. They could. It would be very easy for them to do. They aren’t. There’s only one reason.

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

Who gets to set foreign policy?

I thought we had that one covered.

As for the rest, you FEELING IT isn't factual. If there were proof I'd be against it. But instead we have a shit show from some dems who've been after Impeach 45 since day 1. I said long ago that you cry wolf often enough people just tune you out.

And witnesses decide not to show up.

If we proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Trump team has it covered because apparently even if he is using foreign policy to hurt his political opponents, that’s not impeachable.

Try proving anything AT ALL, then come back and whine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They did call them. Are you accusing me of stupidity when you didn’t know this very basic fact?

if they called their witnesses what the fuck are they bitching about more for then? they should have done this then.

stop being intentionally an ass. it's bad when when you do it unintentionally.

Because the witnesses never showed up.

I’ve been more polite to you than you deserve. Wash your mouth out with soap before I change my mind.

I'm betting money that Ice isn't exactly shaking in his boots over the fear that a peurile 3rd-rate wackjob like you is going to be mean to him.

Why y’all so nasty all the time?

Idiots bring out the worst in us.

Or the best, depending on your perspective.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So he's being impeached for doing his job.

Got it.

Next up we will go over why this is stupid.

That’s being awfully simplistic. Use of foreign policy for personal benefit isn’t his job.

Who gets to set foreign policy?

I thought we had that one covered.

As for the rest, you FEELING IT isn't factual. If there were proof I'd be against it. But instead we have a shit show from some dems who've been after Impeach 45 since day 1. I said long ago that you cry wolf often enough people just tune you out.

And witnesses decide not to show up.

If we proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Trump team has it covered because apparently even if he is using foreign policy to hurt his political opponents, that’s not impeachable.

Tell you what, prove it to that degree and I'm in.

So do you want to hear from all the witnesses then?

Do you actually mean "ALL the witnesses", or just more one-sided, cherrypicked BS like the House "impeachment hearings"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How am I wrong? DumBama had a reason to see Trump defeated. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he was instrumental in that goal.

Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.

If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

Oh, yeah, like that's a huge worry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

Oh, yeah, because you guys came out looking so strong and trustworthy in all this.

 

[colfax_m]

Just like Trump has a reason to see Biden defeated.

If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

Oh, yeah, like that's a huge worry.

Apparently. Otherwise y’all wouldn’t be going to such lengths making fools of yourselfs to go after him.

 

[iceberg]

If he ends up being Trump's opponent, then he will have a reason. Right now, and even back in July, he had no reason because Biden was not his opponent yet. It's a made-up lie by the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump was Hillary's opponent. Apples and oranges.

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

Oh, yeah, like that's a huge worry.

Apparently. Otherwise y’all wouldn’t be going to such lengths making fools of yourselfs to go after him.

like yet another foolish run at trump?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the dems did not do everything they could to get the truth out. They cut corners and tried to get
the Senate to do the work they should have done. I'm not sure why you are defending them
as you are. The dems feet are the ones who's feet should be held to the fire.

You have any idea how long it would take to get the lawsuits through the court? McGhan’s lawsuit has a single ruling in district court and that was like 8 months ago. This will take years and I have little doubt they will be taking these to court now. Nothing was lost by going an alternative route.

The Senate should have called witnesses during the trial. The House can’t do that. They weren’t asking the Senate to do their job for them. They were asking the Senate to do the job the Constitution gives them.

What makes you think that going through the courts was any different in the Senate? The dems didn't do their job and you can't admit that.
The democrats had 17 witnesses, they then said they had a mountain of evidence and closed their end to it. Well, I guess they didn't
The debate is with what those 17 witnesses testified to in the House, over in the Senate. It's not up to the Senate
to do the work of the House.

The Senate could have voted for witnesses and avoided the need for a lengthy protracted legal battle that now awaits Dems. The outcome is not in doubt. Trump will lose.

There was no reason for Republicans in the Senate to avoid witnesses other than they don’t want us to know what happened.

I thought the House already made their case about what happened. Did they fail?

Senate Republican Lamar Alexander said the House did make their case.

You forgot the last part of what he said: ". . . but it's not impeachable."

In other words, you wasted everyone's time making a case that wasn't a case at all.

Notably, Lamar Alexander also voted against further witnesses and a continuation of your sturm und drang.

 

[colfax_m]

But as you pointed out, just because they aren’t on the same ballot, doesn’t mean they aren’t opponents. Remember, you claimed Obama was Trump’s opponent.

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

Oh, yeah, like that's a huge worry.

Apparently. Otherwise y’all wouldn’t be going to such lengths making fools of yourselfs to go after him.

like yet another foolish run at trump?

You did the exact same shit to Clinton. Make a ton of baseless accusations. And when none of it pans out, forget that you made fools of yourself then and move onto the next target.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Try being honest for a change. It would be a nice addition to your portfolio.

Take your own advice, instead of being just another parrot. Too lazy to, most likely.

You mistake me for a Democrat. I joined the Lincoln Project. Ever hear of it? You are about to. It's all done by Republicans. Sorry, no Party of the Rump invited. We are taking back the Republican Party. The first step is to get rid of Rump and his followers. Get ready for Rump to be crazy out of his mind. The Lincoln Party is going to voice the truth in ways that the Democrats can't.

Your Lincoln party is a bunch of sore losers just like the Democrats. There were a lot of anti-Trump people last presidential election. They stayed home or voted third party. Now that they've seen the results of Trump's leadership, now that they've seen his conservative stance, they are converts that won't miss the next election just like us other Trump supporters.

When Bernie gets screwed out of the nomination once again, you will see a very fragmented party. Not only will they not vote for Biden, some may be pissed off enough to vote for Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

ELIZABETH WARREN’S QUESTION

Former Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren posed a grandstanding question attacking Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump yesterday. Warren was shrieking for attention. Why might that be? It is a little difficult to follow the logic of the question. The patent stupidity of the question should embarrass her and her target audience. Chief Justice Roberts was visibly chagrined by her ridiculous antics, and it was at that moment that Lisa Murkowski had had enough of the Democrats Unconstitutional Farce being used to attack the foundations of our Federal system.

Ted Cruz thinks the Dems were hoping to set Chief Justice Roberts up so they could take a swipe at the legitimacy of the Supreme Court while they were at it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the dems did not do everything they could to get the truth out. They cut corners and tried to get
the Senate to do the work they should have done. I'm not sure why you are defending them
as you are. The dems feet are the ones who's feet should be held to the fire.

You have any idea how long it would take to get the lawsuits through the court? McGhan’s lawsuit has a single ruling in district court and that was like 8 months ago. This will take years and I have little doubt they will be taking these to court now. Nothing was lost by going an alternative route.

The Senate should have called witnesses during the trial. The House can’t do that. They weren’t asking the Senate to do their job for them. They were asking the Senate to do the job the Constitution gives them.

Excuse me? The House can't call witnesses? What the fuck do you think the House was DOING during the impeachment process? The Constitution does NOT mandate that the Senate do the investigating for the House.

The House can’t call witnesses at the trial. Good lord, did you actually read ?

Good Lord, do you actually think? The House called and heard witnesses during their big sham "investigation". Those testimonies were part of the impeachment managers' presentation to the Senate.

The only thing the House can't do is force the Senate to do their investigatory job by calling EVEN MORE witnesses, which the House didn't bother to call before.

If the House wanted to present extra witness testimony to the Senate, they should have tended to that before now.

There have been 15 impeachment trials in the senate This is the FIRST one without witnesses

Look, Polly. I know this is the line your owners have taught you to squawk in order to get your cracker, but actual people know a few facts you've been told to ignore:

1) The Clinton Impeachment had no live witnesses. They had depositions of witness testimony taken during the House investigation, just like this "impeachment" had.

2) The Democrats probably could have had the extra votes they need for FURTHER witnesses if they hadn't alienated the members of the Senate with their shoddy and pathetic political games.

3) If the House had even attempted to make a pretense that this sham, partisan hack job was a real impeachment, they'd have had a lot more luck with demanding the rest of us treat it seriously. If it wasn't worth your effort, it wasn't worth ours.

 

[iceberg]

Show me where I said that. I said that Hillary was Trump's opponent, and DumBama had a stake in the election because Hillary would have protected his stupid healthcare law.

That’s where you said it. Just now. Trump too had a stake in preventing Biden from getting elected too. Does he not?

Oh, yeah, like that's a huge worry.

Apparently. Otherwise y’all wouldn’t be going to such lengths making fools of yourselfs to go after him.

like yet another foolish run at trump?

You did the exact same shit to Clinton. Make a ton of baseless accusations. And when none of it pans out, forget that you made fools of yourself then and move onto the next target.

but Clinton lied to the fbi.

Or is that no longer an issue?.. and like I've said many times this was never about Trump 9n as much as revenge. you just proved that's what it is to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Excuse me? The House can't call witnesses? What the fuck do you think the House was DOING during the impeachment process? The Constitution does NOT mandate that the Senate do the investigating for the House.

The House can’t call witnesses at the trial. Good lord, did you actually read ?

Good Lord, do you actually think? The House called and heard witnesses during their big sham "investigation". Those testimonies were part of the impeachment managers' presentation to the Senate.

The only thing the House can't do is force the Senate to do their investigatory job by calling EVEN MORE witnesses, which the House didn't bother to call before.

If the House wanted to present extra witness testimony to the Senate, they should have tended to that before now.

There have been 15 impeachment trials in the senate This is the FIRST one without witnesses

Not to mention that it's the first time that the accused didn't have his Due Process, you
forgot about that part, huh?
Well, the House had 17...maybe 18 witnesses, they should have subpoenaed any others that they wanted.Instead,
they wanted to end their proceedings early and get home before Christmas.
There was lots of testimony used in the Senate that the House provided.

Should have subpoenaed others ???The WH refused to let witnesses appear the WH refused to show documents A trial without witnesses is NO TRIAL at all And now the POS in the WH can strut around saying he's innocent??? Not by a long shot

You really have no idea how subpoenas work, do you? The House doesn't just get to wave its collective Imperial hand and compel people to show up and talk. They have to put in an official legal request for the appearance in the form of a subpoena. Their opposition, in this case the White House, has every legal right to fight that subpoena. Then they all go to court, make their arguments for and against to a judge, and he decides whether the subpoena stands or not. Same thing goes for subpoenaed documents.

Your House Democrats fucked you by being in too much of a rush to bother making their case to the judge. Too bad for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The executive branch works for trump

Get ready for ANOTHER rigging of our election thanks to republican cowards in the senate.... 75% of Americans wanted witnesses for a fair trial Hopefully the scum all get voted out

Our representatives don't act according to rigged polls, they conduct themselves by right or wrong. This phony impeachment was clearly wrong. A hundred more witnesses doesn't change that fact. They were not needed.

Phony is when the accused is innocent. And it's pretty apparent that Rump was born guilty and just gets guiltier every day by his own actions. So don't try that tired old argument. The General Public ain't buyin' it.

The accused is innocent because he broke no laws. Even if it could be proven that Trump did a quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Biden situation, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents in the past.

It's impossible to prove motive, especially given the fact at the time of the call, the nomination was nearly a year away as to who Trump's opponent would be. So that negates this phony claim that Trump did it for personal reasons. Therefore, the impeachment and charge are totally bogus.

The witnesses NOT ALLOWED to testify by trump would have more than proven Trump was guilty as sin Was there ANY proof Trump didn't commit a crime,,,or just repub BS ? Since when do we have a trial without witnesses ?? Repubs in the senate are scared of the POS in the WH They are cowardly traitors

No, you ASSume they would have "proven" it. We've never seen any indication anyone had definitive evidence. If they had, the House should have and would have taken the time to go through the subpoena process, instead of rushing through the hearings and then deploying legal imbeciles like you to squawk and cry about how "unfair" it was that Trump didn't just immediately surrender and confess the instant Pelosi glared at him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Get ready for ANOTHER rigging of our election thanks to republican cowards in the senate.... 75% of Americans wanted witnesses for a fair trial Hopefully the scum all get voted out

Our representatives don't act according to rigged polls, they conduct themselves by right or wrong. This phony impeachment was clearly wrong. A hundred more witnesses doesn't change that fact. They were not needed.

Phony is when the accused is innocent. And it's pretty apparent that Rump was born guilty and just gets guiltier every day by his own actions. So don't try that tired old argument. The General Public ain't buyin' it.

The accused is innocent because he broke no laws. Even if it could be proven that Trump did a quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Biden situation, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents in the past.

It's impossible to prove motive, especially given the fact at the time of the call, the nomination was nearly a year away as to who Trump's opponent would be. So that negates this phony claim that Trump did it for personal reasons. Therefore, the impeachment and charge are totally bogus.

The witnesses NOT ALLOWED to testify by trump would have more than proven Trump was guilty as sin Was there ANY proof Trump didn't commit a crime,,,or just repub BS ? Since when do we have a trial without witnesses ?? Repubs in the senate are scared of the POS in the WH They are cowardly traitors

Trump has executive privilege and every right to invoke it

Anyone who's ever received a subpoena or had a subpoena issued about them has every legal right to fight it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our representatives don't act according to rigged polls, they conduct themselves by right or wrong. This phony impeachment was clearly wrong. A hundred more witnesses doesn't change that fact. They were not needed.

Phony is when the accused is innocent. And it's pretty apparent that Rump was born guilty and just gets guiltier every day by his own actions. So don't try that tired old argument. The General Public ain't buyin' it.

The accused is innocent because he broke no laws. Even if it could be proven that Trump did a quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Biden situation, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents in the past.

It's impossible to prove motive, especially given the fact at the time of the call, the nomination was nearly a year away as to who Trump's opponent would be. So that negates this phony claim that Trump did it for personal reasons. Therefore, the impeachment and charge are totally bogus.

The witnesses NOT ALLOWED to testify by trump would have more than proven Trump was guilty as sin Was there ANY proof Trump didn't commit a crime,,,or just repub BS ? Since when do we have a trial without witnesses ?? Repubs in the senate are scared of the POS in the WH They are cowardly traitors

Trump has executive privilege and every right to invoke it

Ever hear of anyone on trial refusing to hear those who will prove his innocence? I haven't .Maybe you have Ever hear of an impeachment trial without witnesses?

Yeah, I have. It's called "moving for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence." Also, the Clinton impeachment had no live witnesses.

I'm betting you haven't heard of a lot of things that happen in the real, adult world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our representatives don't act according to rigged polls, they conduct themselves by right or wrong. This phony impeachment was clearly wrong. A hundred more witnesses doesn't change that fact. They were not needed.

Phony is when the accused is innocent. And it's pretty apparent that Rump was born guilty and just gets guiltier every day by his own actions. So don't try that tired old argument. The General Public ain't buyin' it.

The accused is innocent because he broke no laws. Even if it could be proven that Trump did a quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Biden situation, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents in the past.

It's impossible to prove motive, especially given the fact at the time of the call, the nomination was nearly a year away as to who Trump's opponent would be. So that negates this phony claim that Trump did it for personal reasons. Therefore, the impeachment and charge are totally bogus.

The witnesses NOT ALLOWED to testify by trump would have more than proven Trump was guilty as sin Was there ANY proof Trump didn't commit a crime,,,or just repub BS ? Since when do we have a trial without witnesses ?? Repubs in the senate are scared of the POS in the WH They are cowardly traitors

Trump has executive privilege and every right to invoke it

You gave a lying pos the privilege and America is paying the price

No, dipshit. The law gives EVERY President the right of executive privilege. Your whining ignorance isn't America paying any price; it's just you.

Enjoy the butthurt being a fool always causes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The accused is innocent because he broke no laws. Even if it could be proven that Trump did a quid pro quo to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Biden situation, there is nothing illegal about that. In fact, quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents in the past.

It's impossible to prove motive, especially given the fact at the time of the call, the nomination was nearly a year away as to who Trump's opponent would be. So that negates this phony claim that Trump did it for personal reasons. Therefore, the impeachment and charge are totally bogus.

The witnesses NOT ALLOWED to testify by trump would have more than proven Trump was guilty as sin Was there ANY proof Trump didn't commit a crime,,,or just repub BS ? Since when do we have a trial without witnesses ?? Repubs in the senate are scared of the POS in the WH They are cowardly traitors

Trump has executive privilege and every right to invoke it

Ever hear of anyone on trial refusing to hear those who will prove his innocence? I haven't .Maybe you have Ever hear of an impeachment trial without witnesses?

When the prosecution cannot prove guilt the defense rests

We proved it and would have proved it even more beyond a shadow of a doubt if the lying traitors in Repub senate weren't scared to death of the pig in the WH and allowed testimony from those under subpoena

You didn't prove shit, and if you'd been able to, it would have happened before the Senate trial even started. Moron.

It wasn't the Senate Republicans who stopped the witnesses under subpoena from having a chance to testify. It was Nancy Pelosi, saying she didn't want to take the time. Go crybaby at her.