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

[bripat9643]

Who says the Senate has to call any witnesses?

Because it's supposed to be a trial. Witnesses are generally called in trials.

It's not a criminal trial, moron. Why would you need to call a witness when his testimony has already been observed?

Because that's the purpose of a trial. For the Senate to mull over evidence; some of which may not have been presented during the hearing.

Yes it is which does not include the jury doing further investigations for the house.

Moron, it does include witnesses.

And as has been pointed out to you already, you're just too dense to comprehend.... the next phase is a trial, not an investigation.

It's not a legal trial, dumbass.

Yes it is which does not include the jury doing further investigations for the house.

Moron, it does include witnesses.

And as has been pointed out to you already, you're just too dense to comprehend.... the next phase is a trial, not an investigation.

Nows it's time for the trial.

Maybe, maybe not.

The investigation is over. The impeachment vote has been cast.now we move to the trial stage and the democrats have nothing for evidence that would compel the Senate to convict. I know it and even more, you know it.

Again... maybe, maybe not. What are you going to do if Pelosi chooses to not let the Senate hold a trial? Pound more sand?

Piglosi's petulance will be worthless after Trump gets reelected.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

ROFL! Of course he's the accuser. He's not a "they," by the way. The accuser is the accuser. We all know who he is.

 

[berg80]

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.

Trumpette's are completely fucked.

Alexander Vindman testified that he found Trump's Ukraine call "troubling and disturbing"

READ: Testimony Of Fiona Hill, Ex-White House Russia Policy Official

Read the full transcript of top diplomat Bill Taylor's impeachment testimony

Read the full text of the whistleblower complaint over Trump-Ukraine call

Read Kurt Volker's full testimony in the impeachment inquiry

Diplomat says of Trump Ukraine call: ‘I remember it vividly’

Gordon Sondland’s Testimony Is Damning for Trump — and Himself

 

[berg80]

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

Just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the truth.

So you say. But you won't even try to prove cuz.......you know.........you're full of shit.

 

[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.

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.

It's in the fucking constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

 

[DBA]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the truth.

So you say. But you won't even try to prove cuz.......you know.........you're full of shit.

Why bother proving it when it's readily apparent to anyone with a functioning brain? I simply note it so no one gets the idea that your claims are not contested by anyone.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

ROFL! Of course he's the accuser. He's not a "they," by the way. The accuser is the accuser. We all know who he is.

After all the testimony has been heard, the whistleblower’s account is completely unnecessary. The whistleblower complaint was merely highlighting where to look to find the high crimes.

 

[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.

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.

Trumpette's are completely fucked.

Alexander Vindman testified that he found Trump's Ukraine call "troubling and disturbing"

READ: Testimony Of Fiona Hill, Ex-White House Russia Policy Official

Read the full transcript of top diplomat Bill Taylor's impeachment testimony

Read the full text of the whistleblower complaint over Trump-Ukraine call

Read Kurt Volker's full testimony in the impeachment inquiry

Diplomat says of Trump Ukraine call: ‘I remember it vividly’

Gordon Sondland’s Testimony Is Damning for Trump — and Himself

So where are the facts? Everything you listed is hearsay or worthless opinions.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

He had his chance. They had phony opinion witnesses coming and going. Jury deliberations is not the place to present new witnesses.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Colfax doesn't understand the Bill of rights. He also doesn't agree with it.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?

There was nothing wrong with Trump's actions. Not the real actions without democrat lies and opinions.

 

[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.

It's in the fucking constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

Alright you dope. I’m going to explain this to you once.

The 6th amendment applies to criminal trials. It doesn’t apply to impeachment. Even if it did apply to impeachment, the right to confront your accuser applies at trial and Trump has not had his trial which is conducted in the Senate.

 

[DBA]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?

I see nothing wrong with Trump's actions. He asked a foreign power to investigate potential corruption which directly affected the US. He has every right to do so and, if we are to believe Biden, every right to withold money until he gets what he asked for.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.

I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.

Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?

There was nothing wrong with Trump's actions. Not the real actions without democrat lies and opinions.

He was using government to get an edge for his re-election. No one should be okay with that.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

He had his chance. They had phony opinion witnesses coming and going. Jury deliberations is not the place to present new witnesses.

The Senate is not just conducting jury deliberations. They’re conducting a trial. Last time I checked, witnesses are called at trials.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

"As they sat for photographs at the start of their first formal meeting in nearly a year, the US president lightheartedly sought common ground with Putin at the expense of the journalists around them in Osaka.

“Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia but we do,” Trump said.

To which Putin responded, in English: “We also have. It’s the same.”

Trump jokes to Putin they should 'get rid' of journalists