Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Given the actions of the Democrats in the house - expecially regarding allowable witnesses and questions asked of same - why should the GOP give a hoot in hell what Schumer wants for the senate trial?Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
Schifferbrains being in a hurry doesn’t constitute obstruction of Congress by Trump.Simple. Such a court process would take, literally, years.If it was so illegal, and if they are guaranteed to be the smoking gun, why then didn't Schiff take it to court and force them into evidence? Answer, this is a political proceeding and not related to justice. Another answer, they would not be detrimental to the president and Schiff wanted to grandstand about them instead of doing the dirty work necessary to get them into the light.But..........that's not true at all. Trump's illegal obstruction prevented a lot of pertinent testimony and access to documents the Dems want to have placed in evidence.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?It's a troll thread about a bullshit hoax. The corruption of the FBI is far more relevant in relation to the persecution of a sitting president.
.
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.
And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.1. Not if the justices wanted to streamline the process.
2. If it's really about justice, what's the problem? It's not, it's about getting something to use on the campaign trail, and Trump knew that Schiff wouldn't do anything that would take any amount of time at all because of that.
There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.
The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.
One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Sooooooo...
The Democrats stage a sham trial in the House, with a cornucopia of slanders and no opportunity to rebut anything effectively, and NOW they want a REAL trial?
Un.
Fucking.
Believable.
McConnell will shove it right up their collective, figurative ASS! And he should.
If the Senate truly wants their testimony, they know how to get it, and it may mean that the democrats have to stay in session six days a week through campaign season. More likely, the democrats will capitulate and vote to make it go away so they can campaign.Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?They can, if the Republicans in charge allow them to.
Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.
These are government officials. Testifying before the people's representatives is part of their duty to the American people. It's not harassment to answer questions about their actions as servants to the people.
Apparently some people believe anything.You have evidence now? Lol
Which article and section is this requirement?“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.
This didn't once bother the Democrats in the house, so...Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?
No... but it carriers a death sentence.3 years later and "Obstruction of Hillary" is STILL not a crime
What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.There's no reason to believe that it would make it through three rounds of court cases within the next year, and that puts them entirely at the mercy of the justice system. It took 6 months just to get an initial decision against McGhan.
The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.
One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Schumer can shove his 'requests' up his ass.Schumer is asking for all the pertinent evidence to be presented. What's wrong with that?Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
which was a partisan pissin' match
so i'd expect nothing less this time 'round
~S~
Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.
The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.
One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
If the Senate truly wants their testimony, they know how to get it, and it may mean that the democrats have to stay in session six days a week through campaign season. More likely, the democrats will capitulate and vote to make it go away so they can campaign.Look into it. While you're doing that, remember that the Senate is less hostile to the president than the House is, so they are less inclined to harass him.What makes you think the Senate would be any more effective at getting them on the stand than the House was, and what makes you think they'd be any more inclined?Don't you think Republicans should be in favor of getting all the facts? If not for impeachment, but for the voters?
Seems like testifying before an actual impeachment trial would carry some additional weight. I don't know if there's any precedent for defying that subpoena.
These are government officials. Testifying before the people's representatives is part of their duty to the American people. It's not harassment to answer questions about their actions as servants to the people.
We don't know, because they were prevented. See how that works? Are you going to pretend the Republicans were not shut down in their questioning and were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wanted?What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.And Trump knew that Schiff and crew were more interested in getting a campaign issue than actually trying to remove him, so he knew he could easily run out the clock. Like I said, if it was really about justice, they would have gotten the courts to rule on it. They didn't.
The fact that you acknowledge this all has to be done in a year is an admission that it's all about the election.
One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Which witnesses are those?Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?
We don't know, because they were prevented. See how that works? Are you going to pretend the Republicans were not shut down in their questioning and were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wanted?What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.One side wants the facts out and one side doesn't. That's all you really need to know.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Do you suppose the Dems should have thought of this before they blocked testimony from witnesses the Republicans wanted to question in the impeachment "inquiry"?They want testimony from a handful of people that were blocked. It won't take more than a few days to hear their stories.
You avoided my question:Which witnesses are those?Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.Both sides want their facts out, as was obvious in the House show trial.
The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?
Hunter Biden doesn't know anything about Tru p's little Ukrainian drug deal. The whistleblower doesn't have any direct knowledge, as we've all been told over and over again.
Which actions?Repubs know better than to have Old Joe testify. The last thing in the world McTreason and Lindsey want is for The Following to have to face the truth about the Biden farce. Dems have rightly kept that whole irrelevant sideshow from being injected in to the House inquiry in order to keep the focus on the matter at hand..........Trump's actions.Good, then we should get testimony from Biden about his threat to cut funding unless the Ukrainians stop investigating his crackhead son.
You avoided my question:Which witnesses are those?Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?And they're in charge in the Senate. Just like the democrats in the House only wanted "facts" that condemned the president and resisted anything exculpatory, they now wield the power to dictate in large part what comes out.The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?
Hunter Biden doesn't know anything about Tru p's little Ukrainian drug deal. The whistleblower doesn't have any direct knowledge, as we've all been told over and over again.
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?
