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.
There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.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.
Good point.Good, then we should get testimony from Biden about his threat to cut funding unless the Ukrainians stop investigating his crackhead son.
Just wonder Pete, Biden's threat to cut funding to Ukraine in six hours after Congress passing it if he didn't get his way, how was THAT not a threat to our national security? Seems we need to look a lot closer at that.
More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.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.
Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.
The more we confront Trumpette's with the facts the more they retreat in to their fantasy world.The Senate is not just conducting jury deliberations. They’re conducting a trial. Last time I checked, witnesses are called at trials.He had his chance. They had phony opinion witnesses coming and going. Jury deliberations is not the place to present new witnesses.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~
ROFL! It has everything to do with Trump.For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.For what purpose?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.
Which has nothing to do with Trump, so it’s therefore an unrelated matter.
That wasn’t actually the question.Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?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.
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.
Name one.More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.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.
Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.
Republicans and Trump have them so confused, they can’t tell what is true or not. Which is the whole point.The more we confront Trumpette's with the facts the more they retreat in to their fantasy world.The Senate is not just conducting jury deliberations. They’re conducting a trial. Last time I checked, witnesses are called at trials.He had his chance. They had phony opinion witnesses coming and going. Jury deliberations is not the place to present new witnesses.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~
The Constitution says it's necessary, you Stalinist douchebag.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.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”.
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.
The Constitution says it's necessary, you Stalinist douchebag.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.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”.
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.
Name one.More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.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.
Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.
The money / military aid in question was delivered to Ukraine without them having to do anything....You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________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.
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.
You don't have to repeat yourself. You can shut the fuck up.The Constitution says it's necessary, you Stalinist douchebag.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.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”.
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.
I already explained it to you. I don’t repeat myself to
morons who don’t listen. You want to live in ignorance, there’s nothing I’m going to be able to do about that.
Wrong.He was using government to get an edge for his re-election. No one should be okay with that.There was nothing wrong with Trump's actions. Not the real actions without democrat lies and opinions.Let’s say you’re right. What effect does that have on what we know about Trump’s actions?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.
You don't have to repeat yourself. You can shut the fuck up.The Constitution says it's necessary, you Stalinist douchebag.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.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”.
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.
I already explained it to you. I don’t repeat myself to
morons who don’t listen. You want to live in ignorance, there’s nothing I’m going to be able to do about that.
I offered a suggestion. You can keep speaking, and I can keep humiliating you. See, I'm not a Stalinist douchebag like you. I support the Bill of Rights, unlike you.You don't have to repeat yourself. You can shut the fuck up.The Constitution says it's necessary, you Stalinist douchebag.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.
I already explained it to you. I don’t repeat myself to
morons who don’t listen. You want to live in ignorance, there’s nothing I’m going to be able to do about that.
Such a cute little authoritarian thug telling others when they can speak.
Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.
The democommiecrats had their chance to call witnesses. If they didn't tough shit on them.How about Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo (all first-hand fact witnesses) testify in the Senate, Twinkie?Buck up, snowflakes. The Democrats - Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, Brennan, Clinesmith, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Schiff, and Nadler - will not get dragged before the Senate to testify and answer for their crimes in a 'reckoning' long overdue.
Better yet, how 'bout the Pussy Grabber in Chief mans up and testifies under oath before the American people?
Do you understand why Trump so desperately wanted to WB to testify?ROFL! It has everything to do with Trump.For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.For what purpose?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.
Which has nothing to do with Trump, so it’s therefore an unrelated matter.
It's fun to watch you squirm trying rationalize not forcing the Whistleblower to testify.
You mean the Senator who said he's working with the White House?Moron, it does include witnesses.Yes it is which does not include the jury doing further investigations for the house.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.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?
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.
And your biggest problem with that is who is in charge of the trial.
