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

[hadit]

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.

That's certainly one belief system. Since none of us are privy to the president's inner thoughts, it's only speculation.

 

[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.

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

It definitely allows him to pursue Congressional demands all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do you disagree?

 

[berg80]

Well then, the Dimwingers should cancel today's vote, go thru the courts, and try to build a case.

Why doesn't Trump just allow the witnesses to testify?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

As I just said, dope. There is already sufficient evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.



it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.

Actually the idea is to put up a link WHEN it becomes available. Before that it's just hot air connected to nothing. The void.

What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)

You mean like the House impeachment that presented zero evidence of a crime and now MUST Drop the "obstruction" charge?

An impeachment isn't required to "present evidence of a crime". Besides which, no impeachment has even started. Therefore there's no "charge" to "drop".

Hell I ain't even paying attention and even I know that much. See, this is why I fired my TV long ago.

Really? You can impeach just for having control of the House? That's amazing!

 

[hadit]

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.

The House could have compelled the testimony. It's not on the Senate to make up for their failings.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That's certainly one belief system. Since none of us are privy to the president's inner thoughts, it's only speculation.

It's not speculation. Those are the people who actually carried out the plan, dope.

 

[berg80]

Trump claims he didn't do anything wrong.

A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify. In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

If the witnesses will exonerate him, why won't he let the witnesses testify?

 

[bripat9643]

“The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath,” Representative Val B. Demings, Democrat of Florida, said on Friday.

At the start of the trial, the Constitution requires the senators to take an oath. Current Senate rules say that oath includes: “I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

And the penalty is?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The House could have compelled the testimony. It's not on the Senate to make up for their failings.

Not doing it is the Senate's failing.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

The House could have compelled the testimony. It's not on the Senate to make up for their failings.

The House would get their testimony in a few years. The Senate has an obligation to seek the truth. They’re going to help cover for Trump instead.

 

[berg80]

The House could have compelled the testimony.

They tried. Trump obstructed them.

Trump claims he didn't do anything wrong.

A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify. In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

If the witnesses will exonerate him, why won't he let the witnesses testify?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.

You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.

You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.

Why did you crop my response?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You do if you want your accusation to carry any weight among rational reasoned people.

You assert that Giuliani was working on a private, not public, matter because he is Trumps private attorney; absent the explanation noted above, your conclusion does not in any way necessarily follow from the fact you present.

Why did you crop my response?

Unless you can explain 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, your accusation cannot hold water with rational, reasoned people.

Well?

 

[berg80]

“The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath,” Representative Val B. Demings, Democrat of Florida, said on Friday.

At the start of the trial, the Constitution requires the senators to take an oath. Current Senate rules say that oath includes: “I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

And the penalty is?

You've just unwittingly explained why McTreason (and Trump) has become so corrupt. He faces no consequences from his party for his duplicitous, unethical (for Trump illegal) actions.

 

[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.

Jurors do not call witnesses you fucking halfwit.

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

Zero called by Senators, you crayon eating simpleton.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.



it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.

Thank Heaven he's not a majority in the Senate or this nation would be in serious trouble. /whew!

This nation is in trouble, elected officials take an oath that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the people of this country. Unfortunately Republicans in the Senate their loyalty is to Trump, Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham have sold this country out.

Superbadbrutha do you have any outrage for all the Dimwinger Senators who announced hey would vote to impeach Trump even before the phone call?

Yea I have a problem with that, because that is not how the system is supposed to work.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Mitch McConnell is nothing but a Trump Humpin Flunky.

and democrats are dishonest pieces of shit

Yep just like the dishonest POS republicans.

Nope take your TDS somewhere else

I know as a Trump Humper you can't see it.

"As a Trump Humper"....you finally admit your obsession.

Sorry FB, I am not a Trump Humper that is your man.

 

[Nostra]

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.

As I just said, dope. There is already sufficient evidence.

Then why are you whining and crying about needing more witnesses, Puddinhead?