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

[hadit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

They want testimony from a handful of people that were blocked. It won't take more than a few days to hear their stories.

Assuming Trump cooperates and doesn't block it, in which case it goes to the courts, which is where Schiff didn't want to go. And we're back to that. The clock is Trump's friend right now, because he knows that the democrats won't be able to campaign as long as the trial lasts. Look for them to try to find a way to make this go away fast.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

 

[berg80]

Assuming Trump cooperates and doesn't block it, in which case it goes to the courts, which is where Schiff didn't want to go.

If Trump stops obstructing the investigation these cases don't have to be decided in the courts. The witnesses would simply testify, the documents would simply be handed over.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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.

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.

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.

They want testimony from a handful of people that were blocked. It won't take more than a few days to hear their stories.

Assuming Trump cooperates and doesn't block it, in which case it goes to the courts, which is where Schiff didn't want to go. And we're back to that. The clock is Trump's friend right now, because he knows that the democrats won't be able to campaign as long as the trial lasts. Look for them to try to find a way to make this go away fast.

I don't understand what you think is going to happen if Trump blocks them. It's not like they're going to sit in the chamber for months doing nothing.

Given Roberts is overseeing the trial, I wonder if he has the authority to compel their testimony. I don't know. I don't know if Trump wants to find out if he orders to people to refuse to participate in the impeachment trial. That's doubly true for Mulvaney and Bolton.

 

[berg80]

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

I don't accept your premise. It's nothing but a talking point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

I don't accept your premise. It's nothing but a talking point.

I accept your concession. Thank you .

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

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?

They weren't allowed to call witnesses without knowledge of the events.

Interesting admission there. The "witnesses" that were called didn't actually witness anything, they testified to things they heard other people say and assumptions they had. That's why this whole thing should evaporate as fast as a raindrop on a hot parking lot. In fact, the only first hand testimony was that Trump did NOT want a QPQ.

 

[colfax_m]

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

The House was only partisan because House Republicans decided to make a mockery of the process.
It's not a matter about partisanship. It's a matter of legitimacy. The Republicans should want to keep the process legitimate.

 

[colfax_m]

The Republicans only want to dig for facts that are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the impeachment.

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.

What exculpatory facts did the Dems prevent from being heard?

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?

They weren't allowed to call witnesses without knowledge of the events.

Interesting admission there. The "witnesses" that were called didn't actually witness anything, they testified to things they heard other people say and assumptions they had. That's why this whole thing should evaporate as fast as a raindrop on a hot parking lot. In fact, the only first hand testimony was that Trump did NOT want a QPQ.

Well if that's your criticism, you should especially want those with first hand information to testify.

 

[Olde Europe]

If Trump stops obstructing the investigation these cases don't have to be decided in the courts. The witnesses would simply testify, the documents would simply be handed over.

The Executive's duty to hand over evidence as requested by way of duly issued Congressional subpoenas was settled by a unanimous Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon

There should not be, as you rightly note, a need to go before the courts. Quite naturally, what we hear from Trumpletons up and down the ranks is, you need to go to the courts. Because respect for settled precedent is for suckers.

 

[berg80]

Democrats accuse Trump of criminal bribery in report that explains articles of impeachment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...29da74-1ff1-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

Democrats accuse President Trump of criminal bribery in a new report released early Monday that explains the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — that the House is expected to approve mostly along party lines on Wednesday.

A trial will probably begin in the Republican-led Senate in early January, and Democrats are seeking to call several senior Trump administration officials who did not testify as part of the House proceedings.

At the heart of the Democrats’ case is the allegation that Trump tried to leverage a White House meeting and military aid, sought by Ukraine to combat Russian military aggression, to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a probe of an unfounded theory that Kyiv conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

 

[blastoff]

Schumer is asking for all the pertinent evidence to be presented. What's wrong with that?

There isn't any you imbecile....

We're past that now. The 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry blew up that canard. Perhaps it's time you deal with reality.

LOL...reality? Interesting coming from a dipshit still unable to deal with the reality of the 2016 election.

Yeah, bring on those 17 assorted opinions and whatnot. Senate will have a few minutes to deal with and dismiss before lunch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

The House was only partisan because House Republicans decided to make a mockery of the process.

Your excuse does not change the fact you believe it is OK for Democrats to be as partisan as they want, while it is NOT OK for the GOP to respond in like an kind.

 

[Nostra]

Assuming Trump cooperates and doesn't block it, in which case it goes to the courts, which is where Schiff didn't want to go.

If Trump stops obstructing the investigation these cases don't have to be decided in the courts. The witnesses would simply testify, the documents would simply be handed over.

Challenging them in court isn't obstruction. You need your handlers to send you new talking points. That one has been destroyed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats accuse Trump of criminal bribery in report that explains articles of impeachment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...29da74-1ff1-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
Democrats accuse President Trump of criminal bribery in a new report released early Monday that explains the two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — that the House is expected to approve mostly along party lines on Wednesday.

Good luck with that.

 

[Nostra]

Having not heard from the witnesses the Democrats refuses to allow, there's no way to know.

Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

The House was only partisan because House Republicans decided to make a mockery of the process.
It's not a matter about partisanship. It's a matter of legitimacy. The Republicans should want to keep the process legitimate.

You really are dumb.

 

[Nostra]

Which witnesses are those?
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.

You avoided my question:
Why should the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems?

House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.

Ah - you cannot tell us why the the senate GOP be any less partisan the house Dems.
I thought not.
Thanks.

The House was only partisan because House Republicans decided to make a mockery of the process.

Your excuse does not change the fact you believe it is OK for Democrats to be as partisan as they want, while it is NOT OK for the GOP to respond in like an kind.

That blithering idiot doesn't think the Dims were partisan in the House.

 

[berg80]

LOL...reality? Interesting coming from a dipshit still unable to deal with the reality of the 2016 election.

Your attempted diversion is noted.

“The first Article of Impeachment charged President Trump with an abuse of power as that constitutional offense has long been understood,” the report says. “While there is no need for a crime to be proven in order for impeachment to be warranted, here, President Trump’s scheme or course of conduct also encompassed other offenses, both constitutional and criminal in character, and it is appropriate for the Committee to recognize such offenses in assessing the question of impeachment.”

“Applying the constitutional definition of ‘Bribery’ here, there can be little doubt that it is satisfied,” it continues. “President Trump solicited President Zelensky for a ‘favor’ of great personal value to him; he did so corruptly; and he did so in a scheme to influence his own official actions respecting the release of military and security assistance and the offer of a White House meeting. Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal.”

 

[MeBelle]

Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.

which was a partisan pissin' match

so i'd expect nothing less this time 'round

~S~

Schumer is asking for all the pertinent evidence to be presented. What's wrong with that?

There is none.

And Chucky has no say so in how the Senate might run an impeachment trial ..... IF it even comes to that.

 

[MeBelle]

We're past that now. The 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry blew up that canard. Perhaps it's time you deal with reality.

No, we aren't past that now.

The canard is the 17 (?) 'witnesses' who

1) did not witness anything

2) 'testimony' behind closed doors without benefit of cross examination by Republicans

3) NO due process


I'd LOVE for this to go to the USSC.
What a sham.

But you go ahead and continue to carry water for the lawbreaking, constitution busting Dems.