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

[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.

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.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

 

[hadit]

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.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

 

[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.

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.....

Do you seriously not get why pointing to the release of aid AFTER THE DRUG DEAL WAS ALREADY BUSTED is not a rational defense?

At that point there was NO OPTION for Trump to keep the illegal hold on the aid and all Trump would be doing is burying himself deeper by not releasing it ASAP!

You don't need to be a lefty to understand this simple concept, it has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to with having a head on your shoulders.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

I guess the Senate will decide if Trump had a right to his Constitutional privilege to refuse to comply with an out of control partisan driven House running a sham investigation or not.

Determined to drive the legally elected president out of office after the Russian collusion hoax failed impeachment was the back up plan and the drive to impeach has been seen as a blatantly unpopular and unfair process by an increasing number of the public. The FISA court was lied to and deceived in order to get this scheme off the ground.

It has been an illegal and unethical plot from the start.

 

[colfax_m]

"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.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

 

[Faun]

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

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Where is there any proof of this claim at all?

 

[easyt65]

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

The Democrats did call the witnesses they wanted. The problem is the Democrats do not have a crime, do not have evidence of any crime committed, and do not have any real 'witnesses' because none of their 'witnesses' actually WITNESSED anything.

Snowflakes on this board can't even come to grips with the fact that the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the non-qualifying 'whistle blower's complaint because they found NO CRIME and because the individual did not witness what they were reporting, that they were only passing along HEARSAY...and that the DOJ dismissed this fake BS BEFORE manufactured the dismissed case into the foundation for their Impeachment.

Snowflakes on this board cringe and run from the fact that one of SCHIFF'S own witnesses, a State Department rep, stated the President had broken no laws and who should really be investigated and forced to testify under oath is the BIDENS.

Snowflakes refuse to mention / talk about how EVERY ONE of the Democrats' witnesses could NOT name 1 crime OR Impeachable offense committed by the President when directly asked to name one.

The Democrats' case for Impeachment was SO WEAK they had to resurrect false accusations that were debunked by the Weismann-Mueller report and testimony.

During Nadler's disastrous hearing the Democrats bought up despicable anti-Trump Liberal Indoctrination Professors who spewed a lot of OPINION, and the only witness the GOP called was an actual DEMOCRAT Constitutional expert who destroyed the Democrats' case for Impeachment. Turley walked the Democrats - and the country watching - through a Constitutional lesson, explaining how the President had NOT abused his power, violated the Constitution, or broken any law, and how the only ones who have abused their power - endangering our republic's existence / national security as a result - has been the DEMOCRATS.

The Democrats put everything they had on display during their House Inquisition....and it turned out to be - again - NOTHING. Denied their opportunity, it's now the GOP's turn.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

I guess the Senate will decide if Trump had a right to his Constitutional privilege to refuse to comply with an out of control partisan driven House running a sham investigation or not.

Determined to drive the legally elected president out of office after the Russian collusion hoax failed impeachment was the back up plan and the drive to impeach has been seen as a blatantly unpopular and unfair process by an increasing number of the public. The FISA court was lied to and deceived in order to get this scheme off the ground.

It has been an illegal and unethical plot from the start.

Thats a bunch of horsecrap.

If Trump did nothing wrong then Mulveney, Jiuliani would be THRILLED to come testitify and clear him of bogus charges by the Democrats. Trump would LOVE IT. But instead Trump tells them to defy congrssional subpoenas because they all know he is guilty as charged and will do everything they can to avoid testifying.

Every crook that does not have real defense complains about "unfair" process, it means nothing.

 

[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.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

 

[Faun]

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?

That would be true in a court of law, which this isn't. As it stands now, he's the only impeached president who's not been acquitted.

 

[Faun]

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.

Lying fucking moron, it is not in the Constitution.

 

[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?

For exposing Adolph Schiffler's collusion and corruption.

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

ROFL! It has everything to do with Trump.

It's fun to watch you squirm trying rationalize not forcing the Whistleblower to testify.

Do you understand why Trump so desperately wanted to WB to testify?

So he could smear him. Character assassination is all he has. Have you noticed?

The Bill of Rights says you have the right to confront your accuser. All you Stalinist assholes who defend not forcing the douchebag whistleblower to testify is admitting they are opposed to due process and the Bill of Rights.

When did you assholes ever come out against smearing people? That's your stock in trade.

 

[Faun]

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.

^^^ conspiracy nut

 

[hadit]

"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.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

 

[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.

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.

Lying fucking moron, it is not in the Constitution.

Wrong, asshole:

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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.

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

 

[hadit]

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?

That would be true in a court of law, which this isn't. As it stands now, he's the only impeached president who's not been acquitted.

That's true, this isn't a court of law. It is a situation in which the handlers of the House inquiry are fair game, as well as the supposed ignition point, aka the WB, and the majority has a lot of leeway to shape it how they want it shaped. IOW, they can totally ignore Schumer's bleating about how they should cover for the sloppy House work.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That's not for you to decide, moron.

 

[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

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election