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

[hadit]

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions.

The opposite is true. The House inquiry was replete with first hand testimony. The facts those 17 witnesses testified to are not in dispute. There is more corroborating testimony that has not been heard due to Trump's obstruction. Dems want it to be placed in evidence............Repubs do not.

1. Trump directed the OMB to put a hold on military aid to Ukraine.
Pentagon official testifies White House directed freeze on aid to Ukraine
2. Members of the U.S. diplomatic corps for Ukraine were told to work with Slimy Rudy to extract the announcement of an investigation in to the Biden's for Baby Donald's personal political benefit.
Testimony and texts: How the Trump-Ukraine allegations fit together in a timeline
3. Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was removed from her position after a smear campaign was launched against her because she was an obstacle to the Trump/Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine.
Giuliani brags about forcing out Trump's Ukraine ambassador
4. The transcript of the Trump/Zelensky call, which was attempted to be hidden in a code level secret server, is documentary evidence of Trump's efforts to extort Ukraine.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's flawed 'read the transcript' defense

The release of the transcript was the last thing Pelosi expected, and is the reason this case is so weak. They couldn't convincingly lie about the call.

 

[easyt65]

Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

The money / military aid in question was delivered to Ukraine without them having to do anything....as opposed to Biden and vis videotape confession and Obama 'being more flexible for Putin' by denying Ukraine lethal military AID NEEDED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST RUSSIA'S INVASION.

You snowflakes have a really politically biased, twisted, warped view of everything.

 

[Roudy]

Notice how the TDS mental illness manifests itself in various individuals. One guy repeats lies and conspiracies while the other posts articles and memes from fake news conspiracy news organizations.

 

[The Original Tree]

Putin Smiles. Good work Comrade. Today is Glorious Day for Mother Russia.

Nice attempt to cherry pick and distort the Weismann-Mueller report that stated NO collusion with the Russians was found ...

That wasn't the conclusion that lifelong Republican fixer Bob Mueller came to: he said he found no proof of collusion between elements of the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Possibly he reached this conclusion because he didn't investigate Trump's financial history with rich FSU gangsters?

"For Donald Trump, there was the purchase of the $12.6 million Scottish estate and the $79.7 million for golf courses in the United Kingdom, not to mention the $16.2 million for the Northern Virginia Winery. All in cash.

"For Michael Cohen, it was the lucrative day in 2014 when he sold four Manhattan buildings for $32 million—three times what he’d paid for them less than three years before."

If Trump Is Laundering Russian Money, Here’s How It Works

Putin Smiles. Good work Comrade. Today is Glorious Day for Mother Russia.

How Putin's oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns

Trump is 'owned by Putin' and has been 'laundering money' for Russians, claims MSNBC's Donny Deutsch

"Reaction and analysis from Rep. Matt Gaetz and 'Swamp Wars' author Jeffrey Lord.

"President Trump is a Russian asset who has laundered money for Vladimir Putin for decades in order to save his struggling casinos, MSNBC's Donny Deutsch claimed Thursday.

"'This is all about failed casinos,' the New York City advertising executive said on 'Morning Joe.' '[Trump] is owned by Putin because he’s been laundering money, Russian money, for the last 20, 30 years. He’s owned by them.'

"'You talk to any banker in New York, any business person in New York, any real estate person … we have a president that’s selling out our military, that’s costing lives, because he is owned by our geopolitical enemy,' he continued.

"'Because he’s been laundering money for him as a criminal organization for the last 30 years.'"

Congratulations. Putin has seen your good work and has promoted you to Junior Red Russian Bear Cub of the 2nd class.

Putin Smiles today, do you not smile and laugh with him?

 

[colfax_m]

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

 

[DBA]

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

Claiming that a vote to aquit has nothing to do with the rule of law is foolishness to the extreme.

Republicans have demonstrated that they have little interest in revealing the truth. This isn’t about rule of law. It’s about keeping us in the dark.

Democrats failed to produce a strong case. That's on them. If they couldn't do it, they could have just dropped it.

This is the attitude I find troubling. I always thought it was Congress’s job to oversee the president. It turns out that just is the duty of Democrats. Republicans have decided their duty is to protect the president.

And you wonder why this feels partisan?

"Oversee" must be a euphemism meaning "smear" or "railroad."

 

[colfax_m]

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

Claiming that a vote to aquit has nothing to do with the rule of law is foolishness to the extreme.

Republicans have demonstrated that they have little interest in revealing the truth. This isn’t about rule of law. It’s about keeping us in the dark.

Democrats failed to produce a strong case. That's on them. If they couldn't do it, they could have just dropped it.

This is the attitude I find troubling. I always thought it was Congress’s job to oversee the president. It turns out that just is the duty of Democrats. Republicans have decided their duty is to protect the president.

And you wonder why this feels partisan?

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions. Basically, you are saying that anyone who condemns the democrats' tactics are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the rule of law or basic fairness. Such is not a good thing.

You also have been saying in essence that the president should not be able to defend himself, as you have complained when he took legal means to do so.

Yes this does feel very partisan, as the democrats have rammed it through with little regard for the seriousness of what they were doing.

Ignore the “case” aspect. I think we should demand transparency and truth from our government. Republicans and Democrats should both be able to support that.

Do you see that desire coming from Republicans?

I don’t see Trump’s behavior as an attempt to defend himself. He’s not trying to defend his actions. He’s trying to obscure them. There’s a difference.

 

[colfax_m]

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

 

[bripat9643]

Your only other option is about to go down in the senate before your eyes

Then you will have no recourse

The Senate is about to place loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the country.

More accurately place loyalty to the rule of law above partisan politics.

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

The impeachment is a scam. Quit pretending you don't know that.

 

[bripat9643]

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.

 

[bripat9643]

Claiming that a vote to aquit has nothing to do with the rule of law is foolishness to the extreme.

Republicans have demonstrated that they have little interest in revealing the truth. This isn’t about rule of law. It’s about keeping us in the dark.

Democrats failed to produce a strong case. That's on them. If they couldn't do it, they could have just dropped it.

This is the attitude I find troubling. I always thought it was Congress’s job to oversee the president. It turns out that just is the duty of Democrats. Republicans have decided their duty is to protect the president.

And you wonder why this feels partisan?

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions. Basically, you are saying that anyone who condemns the democrats' tactics are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the rule of law or basic fairness. Such is not a good thing.

You also have been saying in essence that the president should not be able to defend himself, as you have complained when he took legal means to do so.

Yes this does feel very partisan, as the democrats have rammed it through with little regard for the seriousness of what they were doing.

Ignore the “case” aspect. I think we should demand transparency and truth from our government. Republicans and Democrats should both be able to support that.

Do you see that desire coming from Republicans?

I don’t see Trump’s behavior as an attempt to defend himself. He’s not trying to defend his actions. He’s trying to obscure them. There’s a difference.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[colfax_m]

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.

Which has nothing to do with Trump, so it’s therefore an unrelated matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions.

The opposite is true. The House inquiry was replete with first hand testimony. The facts those 17 witnesses testified to are not in dispute. There is more corroborating testimony that has not been heard due to Trump's obstruction. Dems want it to be placed in evidence............Repubs do not.

1. Trump directed the OMB to put a hold on military aid to Ukraine.
Pentagon official testifies White House directed freeze on aid to Ukraine
2. Members of the U.S. diplomatic corps for Ukraine were told to work with Slimy Rudy to extract the announcement of an investigation in to the Biden's for Baby Donald's personal political benefit.
Testimony and texts: How the Trump-Ukraine allegations fit together in a timeline
3. Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was removed from her position after a smear campaign was launched against her because she was an obstacle to the Trump/Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine.
Giuliani brags about forcing out Trump's Ukraine ambassador
4. The transcript of the Trump/Zelensky call, which was attempted to be hidden in a code level secret server, is documentary evidence of Trump's efforts to extort Ukraine.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's flawed 'read the transcript' defense

The release of the transcript was the last thing Pelosi expected, and is the reason this case is so weak. They couldn't convincingly lie about the call.

Trump royally fucked them by releasing the transcript.

 

[colfax_m]

You think they’re standing up for the rule of law?

They’re covering for Trump. Nothing more.

Claiming that a vote to aquit has nothing to do with the rule of law is foolishness to the extreme.

Republicans have demonstrated that they have little interest in revealing the truth. This isn’t about rule of law. It’s about keeping us in the dark.

Democrats failed to produce a strong case. That's on them. If they couldn't do it, they could have just dropped it.

This is the attitude I find troubling. I always thought it was Congress’s job to oversee the president. It turns out that just is the duty of Democrats. Republicans have decided their duty is to protect the president.

And you wonder why this feels partisan?

"Oversee" must be a euphemism meaning "smear" or "railroad."

How is he being railroaded? Be specific.

 

[DBA]

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

What purpose? To determine if the person is telling the truth or not. They called many other witnesses, why would they not call the one that made the initial accusation? We can't have a system where anyone can make any claim they would like and then not be questioned. That is ridiculous.

 

[DBA]

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.

Which has nothing to do with Trump, so it’s therefore an unrelated matter.

It certainly has something to do with Trump. If the orgins of the accusation are false or were illegally handled by Schiff, Trump could be exonerated. A fabrication by Schiff and the whistleblower has everything to do with Trump.

 

[colfax_m]

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

What purpose? To determine if the person is telling the truth or not. They called many other witnesses, why would they not call the one that made the initial accusation? We can't have a system where anyone can make any claim they would like and then not be questioned. That is ridiculous.

Hmm, Trump can make any claim he wants. Can we question him?

How are you going to determine if the whistleblower is “telling the truth” or not? Didn’t we already do that with testimony from witnesses?

 

[Mac-7]

In essence you are saying that no one should insist that the case against the president be a strong one and that it be well supported by more than second hand impressions and opinions.

The opposite is true. The House inquiry was replete with first hand testimony. The facts those 17 witnesses testified to are not in dispute. There is more corroborating testimony that has not been heard due to Trump's obstruction. Dems want it to be placed in evidence............Repubs do not.

1. Trump directed the OMB to put a hold on military aid to Ukraine.
Pentagon official testifies White House directed freeze on aid to Ukraine
2. Members of the U.S. diplomatic corps for Ukraine were told to work with Slimy Rudy to extract the announcement of an investigation in to the Biden's for Baby Donald's personal political benefit.
Testimony and texts: How the Trump-Ukraine allegations fit together in a timeline
3. Amb. Marie Yovanovitch was removed from her position after a smear campaign was launched against her because she was an obstacle to the Trump/Giuliani scheme to extort Ukraine.
Giuliani brags about forcing out Trump's Ukraine ambassador
4. The transcript of the Trump/Zelensky call, which was attempted to be hidden in a code level secret server, is documentary evidence of Trump's efforts to extort Ukraine.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's flawed 'read the transcript' defense

Thats an impressive indictment was of trump

I dont agree with you on the alleged facts but its obviously real to you

The problem is that your side has been crying wolf since the day trump was elected and dems let out a primal scream not heard since Abraham Lincoln was elected

You simply cant accept the results of the 2016 election

 

[DBA]

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

For what purpose?

What purpose? To determine if the person is telling the truth or not. They called many other witnesses, why would they not call the one that made the initial accusation? We can't have a system where anyone can make any claim they would like and then not be questioned. That is ridiculous.

Hmm, Trump can make any claim he wants. Can we question him?

How are you going to determine if the whistleblower is “telling the truth” or not? Didn’t we already do that with testimony from witnesses?

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I guess you missed that part. I guess you want to change the entire court system to get your wishes. No reason to cross-examine those who make accustations against others. How absurd can you be?