Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[Nostra]

Schumer is planning on asking for a vote on whether the 4 major witnesses who Trump is blocking should testify during the Senate trial. He wants to hold Repubs accountable for being complicit in McTreason and Trump's scheme to obstruct the testimony of witnesses people who will either provide damning evidence or be forced to perjure themselves.

Cryin' Chucky is nothing more than 1 of 100 jurors.

Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.

 

[Nostra]

McTurtle's most cynical deceit was to describe the Senate trial as an entirely partisan exercise. It doesn't have to be, but since NOT A SINGLE Repub will base their vote on the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, it will be.

When will we get to see this "overwhelming evidence"? So far, the moron Dimwingers in the House have hearsay and hurt feelings.

 

[georgephillip]

He's not a fact witness but rather the defendant and you are an IDIOT.

Thanks for admitting Trump's too timid to testify in his own defense.

"A fact witness is an individual, sometimes a clinical professional such as a forensic psychologist, who has personal knowledge of events pertaining to the case can testify as to things they have personally observed or witnessed.

"They may not offer opinions, which are the province of the expert witness, who, in a civil case is either retained by the plaintiff or defense or, more rarely, appointed by the court to make statements about aspects of the case that the professional has personally not observed but in which he or she has specialized training.

"Ultimately, as a fact witness you are to testify on what you have witnessed, without an opinion."

Expert Witness vs. Fact Witness – Psychological Center for Expert Evaluations, Inc.

 

[berg80]

It's not easy when the president decides when he is allowed to be investigated.

Our justice system doesn't make it "easy" to find people guilty of crimes, Colfax...it requires proof be presented by the prosecution. You don't put people in jail because you don't like them! You put them in jail because you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime! Trump hasn't cooperated with Adam Schiff''s attempt to rail road him. For some reason you now think THAT is also an impeachable offence! It would be the same as finding someone guilty of "obstruction of justice" for invoking their 5th Amendment rights!

Trump isn’t invoking his 5th amendment rights. He is preventing a constitutional process.

It was an analogy, Colfax! Trump is invoking his Executive Privilege rights. You have no more right to impeach him for that then a prosecutor has to bring charges against a citizen for invoking any of THEIR rights!

He's not invoking executive privilege either. He's not doing anything other than crumpling them up and throwing them in the shredder.

Answer me one question please.
What do you think would happen to you if your ignored a subpoena?

He ignored nothing. He challenged them in court, per our Constitution. Just because Dimwingere in a hurry to vote on their coup doesn't mean he is obstructing Congress.

Moron.

Even if Trump is within he legal right to prevent witness testimony (which he isn't), he is still preventing information from being added to the record for the Senate trial. Information he implies exonerates him by stating he did nothing wrong. If that's true, why not let the witnesses testify?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

Because they know that putting someone under oath in front of the howling mob isn't a wise thing when they don't have to.

More like it's not wise to to put somone under oath who will only further incriminate the president.

If there were excuplpatory testimony to be had by administration officials, it would have happened already.

 

[Nostra]

Our justice system doesn't make it "easy" to find people guilty of crimes, Colfax...it requires proof be presented by the prosecution. You don't put people in jail because you don't like them! You put them in jail because you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime! Trump hasn't cooperated with Adam Schiff''s attempt to rail road him. For some reason you now think THAT is also an impeachable offence! It would be the same as finding someone guilty of "obstruction of justice" for invoking their 5th Amendment rights!

Trump isn’t invoking his 5th amendment rights. He is preventing a constitutional process.

It was an analogy, Colfax! Trump is invoking his Executive Privilege rights. You have no more right to impeach him for that then a prosecutor has to bring charges against a citizen for invoking any of THEIR rights!

He's not invoking executive privilege either. He's not doing anything other than crumpling them up and throwing them in the shredder.

Answer me one question please.
What do you think would happen to you if your ignored a subpoena?

He ignored nothing. He challenged them in court, per our Constitution. Just because Dimwingere in a hurry to vote on their coup doesn't mean he is obstructing Congress.

Moron.

Even if Trump is within he legal right to prevent witness testimony (which he isn't), he is still preventing information from being added to the record for the Senate trial. Information he implies exonerates him by stating he did nothing wrong. If that's true, why not let the witnesses testify?

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Schifferbrains and Nazi Pelousy couldn't wait for court rulings. That's on them, not Trump.

The Senate is the jury. The House needs to present the case it has..........which is nothing. Jurors don't call witnesses, Dummy.

 

[bripat9643]

It was their job to prove their case. They refused to wait for court decisions on Subpoenas and refused to allow GOP witnesses testify, refused to allow witnesses cross examined, because they wanted Impeachment under The Christmas Tree for Christmas.

Grinch Trump was stonewalling all subpoena requests for individuals and documents in hopes of running out the clock before next November. Do you suppose that has anything to do with statute of limitations restrictions over his pending Russian collusion/obstruction charges?

Michael Cohen: "Individual 1 is Donald J. Trump"

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

 

[Thunk]

Schumer has been reduced to the whiney little bitch that he is!
He was crying again in front of the Senate just this morning.

Is it any wonder why cryin' chuck is crying?

Just take a gander at his wife

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I’m sorry. But what is the difference of opinion here? What exactly is the executive branch’s argument?

You tell me, the house didn't see fit to pursue anything in the courts, so no arguments were made. One co-equal branch doesn't have to justify telling the other to piss off, if they did they wouldn't be equal, would they.

.

Ha! So the Trump claims about his lack of due process are all bullshit too, I suppose. The House can tell him to piss off if the want?

Trump is claiming he has no obligation to submit to any oversight of the House, even during impeachment. Do you buy that excuse? Does anyone?

Second question. What would happen to you if you ignored a subpoena?

Damn, you can't even count, I see 4 questions, in what order would you like me to address them?

.

What would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.

.

That's a problem. No?

 

[georgephillip]

BTW, has anyone heard a word from witness #1 ... the "whistleblower?" About "whistleblower" #2?

Why would any rational observer need to hear from witnesses whose written complaint is comprehensive, detailed, and has been fully corroborated by documents and individuals with first-hand knowledge?

Tell us again why Trump is too timid to testify in his own defense and why this would upset you more if he hadn't switched political parties.

 

[Thunk]

She kinda reminds me of kevin bacon

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

testimony - from many people directly involved. Most importantly from Trump's pointman on Ukraine, ambassador Sondland who got the job by donating a million dollars to Trump campaign. Sondland testified to well known among top level WH officials quid-pro-quo effort led by Juliani on behalf of Trump. He also testified to telling Ukranians and other diplomats that everything, even millitary aid release, is conditioned on public anouncement of investigations by Zelensky.

The House had not "many" but rather just one fact witness - Sondland - who admitted under oath that Trump did not require anything inappropriate of Zelensky, a fact supported by the latter.

That's a stupid argument. Trump said "No quid-pro-quo" and "I want nothing for Zelensky" on the day Congress opened investigations. They are OH-SHIT-I-BETTER-NOT-INCRIMINATE-MYSELF-FURTHER comments.

Nothing in Trump's prior communications with Sondland (as per his testimony) contradicts that he wanted Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into DNC server and Bidens.

Sondland was a Trump's pointman in Ukraine and Sondland certainly thought that Trump doesn't give a shit about Ukraine, certainly thought he wanted to pressure Zelensky to do those inapropriate things.

You should have submitted all of your evidence to Schiff and Nadler before thy held their committee hearings and showed the world THEY have no crime, no evidence, and no witnesses.

Moron, all of that comes directly from recorded witness testimony before Congress and is the backing to Impeachment Articles on Trump's Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congressional Investigation.

What witnesses would those be?

 

[DOTR]

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape t.

Republicans dont have to negotiate. They own the Senate and I hope they remember that. Democrats will always use this "I lost so i get to make the rules" nonsense. But they should be ignored.
I am hearing now they have a new plan...refuse to send the articles to the Senate until the Senate agrees to convict. LOL. OK.
The NYT, Washington Post, CNN and the rest of the media are really pushing for this option.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/how-far-can-house-go-stop-sham-trial/

Mitch wants a show trial — but Dems don't have to give him one

Democrats seek leverage for Trump impeachment trial

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.

In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.

Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.

You have evidence now? Lol

Sure! They couldn't make their case in The House, so let's do a Hail Mary in The Senate!

CHUCK SCHUMER’S IMPEACHMENT MOAN THROWS HOUSE DEMS UNDER THE BUS

Senate Democrats need a trial strategy. A major part of the strategy will be to demand more information. What information? Mainly testimony from past and present administration officials like Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton. Possibly grand jury testimony from the Mueller investigation, as well.

The House could have held off on impeaching President Trump while seeking these forms of evidence in court. However, House Democrats were in a big hurry.

To impeach a president before the facts have come out is a disgrace.​

Senate Democrats undercut the House Dems and their primary impeachment article by moaning that they need more facts. They long for something that might turn public opinion around.

Mitch McConnell dismissed the whining of Schumer and other Senate Democrats with this comment:

“The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rush sloppily through it.”​

He’s right. The American public will agree.

Everyone knows Democrats didn't make the case, can we all just stop fighting and enjoy the Holidays?

He’s right. The American public will agree

Poll: 71% of Americans believe Trump should allow top aides to testify

 

[georgephillip]

It was their job to prove their case. They refused to wait for court decisions on Subpoenas and refused to allow GOP witnesses testify, refused to allow witnesses cross examined, because they wanted Impeachment under The Christmas Tree for Christmas.

Grinch Trump was stonewalling all subpoena requests for individuals and documents in hopes of running out the clock before next November. Do you suppose that has anything to do with statute of limitations restrictions over his pending Russian collusion/obstruction charges?

Michael Cohen: "Individual 1 is Donald J. Trump"

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Stonewalling: Pursuing the legal means the Constitution makes available to you.

Get back to me when you elect a POTUS who's read the Constitution.
All the times Trump said the constitution let's him do whatever he wants

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're trolling the thread, mate. Start a thread on the FBI if you want to discuss it so badly.
I think the American people deserve to hear a full trial of Trump. Not doing so is nakedly abandoning their constitutional duties.

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He sure can. As a private lawyer working on behalf of te private client, Donald Trump.
I thought you said this was about enforcing laws? Seems like it’s more of a private matter, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Never mind the fact you have not explained to yourself or anyone else how or why the President's private lawyer can only represent the President in his persona/private issues, to the full exclusion of public or policy issues.

I don’t have to explain. Rudy has stated on the record he was acting solely as Trump’s private representative.

Yep....."Talk to Rudy".

 

[Nostra]

They've already heard the best the prosecution has, so the only new evidence would be from the defense. Is that what you want, to see the charges be reduced to shreds and lying in the dust?

What makes you think that they can't call witnesses and subpoena documents that were obstructed from reaching the House?

They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.

Why wouldn't they allow testimony that explains how "perfect" the president acted?

So you believe it's ok for the DA to ask the jury to help find more evidence? lol
If democrats had a case they wouldn't be asking for more help from the senate. Anyone with any amount of common sense would see it.

I believe we should hear from the involved officials themselves. A genuine trial would welcome it.

It has nothing to do with the strength of the case. There is plenty of evidence already.

Well then, the Dimwingers should cancel today's vote, go thru the courts, and try to build a case. What they have now is zippo.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, has anyone heard a word from witness #1 ... the "whistleblower?" About "whistleblower" #2?

Why would any rational observer need to hear from witnesses whose written complaint is comprehensive, detailed, and has been fully corroborated by documents and individuals with first-hand knowledge?

Tell us again why Trump is too timid to testify in his own defense and why this would upset you more if he hadn't switched political parties.

Only a Stalinist douchebag would ask such a question.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Schumer is planning on asking for a vote on whether the 4 major witnesses who Trump is blocking should testify during the Senate trial. He wants to hold Repubs accountable for being complicit in McTreason and Trump's scheme to obstruct the testimony of witnesses people who will either provide damning evidence or be forced to perjure themselves.

Cryin' Chucky is nothing more than 1 of 100 jurors.

Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.

Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.

How many witnesses were called in the Cinton trial, dope?