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

[hadit]

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.

You cannot ignore the case aspect, because you are trying to remove a sitting president without a strong justification. That is the problem. And yes, Trump's actions ARE defending himself. Your problem is that you don't like the way he's doing it, likely because it's effective.

 

[AntonToo]

Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.

Thank you for admitting, unlike with Obama and Biden, military aid was given to Ukraine by this administration. THANK YOU.

I admitted nothing like that, you are just shamelessly deflecting like the idiot asshole you are.

Trump administration did eventually approve Javelins by 2018 (after watering down Republican lethal aid platform during 2016 election), but the funding for millitary aid to Ukraine has been APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS since 2014 Annexation of Crimea.

It was ILLEGAL for Trump to hold up this congressionally appropriated funding without a good reason. Administration has been unable to provide this reason even as Trump was getting impeached over this matter.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

How about Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo (all first-hand fact witnesses) testify in the Senate, Twinkie?

Better yet, how 'bout the Pussy Grabber in Chief mans up and testifies under oath before the American people?

The democommiecrats had their chance to call witnesses. If they didn't tough shit on them.

Democrats called all relavant witnesses and documents - but Trump admin refused to release any documents and specificaly instructed witnesses to not comply with sabpoenas and they simply did not show up. The ones that did show, did so in defiance of the President.

This was blatant cover up and obstruction of investigation, which is why it became Article II of Impeachment.

 

[hadit]

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.

Schiff and Nadler had the ability and authority to call the WB during the House inquiry. They did not, why? You say there was no purpose other the intimidate and diversion? Good grief, how far removed from reality are you? This whole thing was predicated on this guy's saying he heard somebody say something that he thought was a problem, and you don't think it's worth even getting him on the stand to find out just what he actually knew, when he knew it, who he talked to and when, given the statements Schiff has made?

You just want him ignored? That's ludicrous. On the contrary, there's no good reason to keep him under cover, unless he doesn't really exist and Schiff made him up as a pretext to launch this debacle.

 

[hadit]

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.

And your biggest problem with that is who is in charge of the trial.

You mean the Senator who said he's working with the White House?

I mean the Republican party. You made up your mind before the inquiry even started that Trump is guilty and are setting up excuses to make yourself feel better when he is inevitably acquitted. The case the House has presented isn't strong enough to unseat the president, and the fact that Senate democrats are demanding that the Senate continue the inquiry instead of judging the merits of the case tell me they're trying to cover for a sloppy job.

 

[hadit]

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."

"Oversee" to the democrat mind just means the president is subordinate to Congress and is not allowed to defend himself in any way.

 

[colfax_m]

This whole thing was predicated on this guy's saying he heard somebody say something that he thought was a problem, and you don't think it's worth even getting him on the stand to find out just what he actually knew, when he knew it, who he talked to and when, given the statements Schiff has made?.

What effect does any of that information have on the case for or against Trump?

 

[colfax_m]

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."

"Oversee" to the democrat mind just means the president is subordinate to Congress and is not allowed to defend himself in any way.

Was Nixon defending himself when he refused to turn over evidence?

 

[easyt65]

I admitted nothing like that

Yes you did - you stated military aid was released. Military aid WAS released, while Barry refused to do so when Ukraine needed it most. Are you now saying military aid was NOT released to Ukraine? You seemed confused, unsure of what it is you said...perhaps because you have tour socialist democrat masters' talking points all jumbled up and confused. Either military aid was released to Ukraine - which it was under Trump or it was not, as it was denied Ukraine just before Barry's pal Putin invaded. Get back to us when you figure out which one it is

 

[hadit]

This whole thing was predicated on this guy's saying he heard somebody say something that he thought was a problem, and you don't think it's worth even getting him on the stand to find out just what he actually knew, when he knew it, who he talked to and when, given the statements Schiff has made?.

What effect does any of that information have on the case for or against Trump?

Quite a bit, if it is revealed that Schiff mishandled the whole thing, lied about it, and presented tainted evidence. Look, we're not prosecuting Jaywalking here, the democrats have broadcast their intention to unseat the president since before he was inaugurated, so they should be very careful to avoid the very thing they're doing right now, which is to present a weak case built largely on supposition, impression and opinion, and totally partisan. That means dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

 

[Faun]

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?

Nonsense, lying fucking moron. Impeached Trump broke the law and got impeached for it.

 

[hadit]

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."

"Oversee" to the democrat mind just means the president is subordinate to Congress and is not allowed to defend himself in any way.

Was Nixon defending himself when he refused to turn over evidence?

No, but guess who found him to be obstructing? Not the democrats in the House, and not the partisans who wanted him gone. Face it, Schiff could have gone the same route and compelled testimony, but instead let the clock dictate his actions. Neither he nor you have the standing to declare Trump to be obstructing.

 

[colfax_m]

This whole thing was predicated on this guy's saying he heard somebody say something that he thought was a problem, and you don't think it's worth even getting him on the stand to find out just what he actually knew, when he knew it, who he talked to and when, given the statements Schiff has made?.

What effect does any of that information have on the case for or against Trump?

Quite a bit, if it is revealed that Schiff mishandled the whole thing, lied about it, and presented tainted evidence. Look, we're not prosecuting Jaywalking here, the democrats have broadcast their intention to unseat the president since before he was inaugurated, so they should be very careful to avoid the very thing they're doing right now, which is to present a weak case built largely on supposition, impression and opinion, and totally partisan. That means dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Tainted evidence? The whistleblower complaint isn’t even being used as evidence. It was used as a map of where to find the evidence.

 

[AntonToo]

Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.[/QUOTE]Thank you for admitting, unlike with Obama and Biden, military aid was given to Ukraine by this administration. THANK YOU.

I admitted nothing like that

Yes you did - you stated military aid was released. Military aid WAS released, while Barry refused to do so when Ukraine needed it most. Are you now saying military aid was NOT released to Ukraine? You seemed confused, unsure of what it is you said...perhaps because you have tour socialist democrat masters' talking points all jumbled up and confused. Either military aid was released to Ukraine - which it was under Trump or it was not, as it was denied Ukraine just before Barry's pal Putin invaded. Get back to us when you figure out which one it is.

You are a fucking moron consitently posting stupid nonsense.

Trump held up congressionally approved millitary aid to Ukraine and he did so illegally, without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations.

We have Mick Mulvaney ON RECORD saying that it was held up to pressure Ukranians to do investigation into DNC server. Sondland's testimony to Congress that he told Ukranians that the aid release is conditioned on public announcement of investigations.

NOTHING you just said re. orginal approval by Trump administration for lethal aid refutes that fact in any way, it is wholly IRRELAVANT to the issue.

 

[hadit]

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?

Nonsense, lying fucking moron. Impeached Trump broke the law and got impeached for it.

Actually, no. Did you even bother to find out what's in the actual articles of impeachment?

 

[hadit]

This whole thing was predicated on this guy's saying he heard somebody say something that he thought was a problem, and you don't think it's worth even getting him on the stand to find out just what he actually knew, when he knew it, who he talked to and when, given the statements Schiff has made?.

What effect does any of that information have on the case for or against Trump?

Quite a bit, if it is revealed that Schiff mishandled the whole thing, lied about it, and presented tainted evidence. Look, we're not prosecuting Jaywalking here, the democrats have broadcast their intention to unseat the president since before he was inaugurated, so they should be very careful to avoid the very thing they're doing right now, which is to present a weak case built largely on supposition, impression and opinion, and totally partisan. That means dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Tainted evidence? The whistleblower complaint isn’t even being used as evidence. It was used as a map of where to find the evidence.

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

 

[colfax_m]

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."

"Oversee" to the democrat mind just means the president is subordinate to Congress and is not allowed to defend himself in any way.

Was Nixon defending himself when he refused to turn over evidence?

No, but guess who found him to be obstructing? Not the democrats in the House, and not the partisans who wanted him gone. Face it, Schiff could have gone the same route and compelled testimony, but instead let the clock dictate his actions. Neither he nor you have the standing to declare Trump to be obstructing.

Interesting. You think the court found Nixon guilty of obstructing? That’s not the case. SCOTUS merely ordered him to turn over the subpoenaed materials and Nixon complied after he lost the case. Nixon did exactly what you’re claiming Trump is entitled to do.

Now, Nixon was very likely going to be impeached for obstructing Congress, but never got the chance.

 

[edthecynic]

military aid was given to Ukraine by this administration.

You left out that the military "aid" cannot be used against Putin's army on the front lines!!!! That's right, the javelins are 100 miles from the front lines!!!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Military aid did not get realeased untill Congress opened investigations.[/QUOTE]Thank you for admitting, unlike with Obama and Biden, military aid was given to Ukraine by this administration. THANK YOU.

I admitted nothing like that

Yes you did - you stated military aid was released. Military aid WAS released, while Barry refused to do so when Ukraine needed it most. Are you now saying military aid was NOT released to Ukraine? You seemed confused, unsure of what it is you said...perhaps because you have tour socialist democrat masters' talking points all jumbled up and confused. Either military aid was released to Ukraine - which it was under Trump or it was not, as it was denied Ukraine just before Barry's pal Putin invaded. Get back to us when you figure out which one it is.

You are a fucking moron consitently posting stupid nonsense.

Trump held up congressionally approved millitary aid to Ukraine and he did so illegally, without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations.

NOTHING you just said re. orginal approval by Trump administration for lethal aid refutes that fact in any way, it is wholly IRRELAVANT to the issue.

According to YOU, it was released:

"Trump held up congressionally aproved millitary aid and he did so illegally and without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations."

It was never illegal anyway, as the ADMINISTRATIVE branch can delay it for a FOREIGN POLICY reason, Obama did it, so did Clinton and Bush.

Drop your partisanship hate will be helpful.....

 

[edthecynic]

Are you now saying military aid was NOT released to Ukraine?

No we are saying the javelins can't be used against Putin's army on the front lines as stipulated by POS Tramp.