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

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

 

[Faun]

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?

Pisslosi can’t do a damn thing with the Senate you uneducated. little yellow coward. By the way, when Trump Ian not removed you are to leave here forever. Oh I forget, you don’t have the balls to stand behind your bullshit. Crying because your boy Schitt couldn’t do his job doesn’t mean you get to try more shit in then Senate. Maybe you should actually g
et some evidence of your crap next time.

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever deranged.

Link to where Pisslosi has any power over the Senate? Oh there isn't one. Showing yourself to be an uneducated litrle yellow coward as always. Put up or STFU. GFY.

Dumbfuck, I never said she has any power over tbd Senate.

You're fucked in the head which is why you've gone off the rails.

 

[Olde Europe]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith.

McConnell is not required to do anything until the House presents to the Senate.

 

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

 

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

How about Senate rules? Do they matter anymore?

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ''; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock after noon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

more...​

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Neither has occurred.

 

[Olde Europe]

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

The general rules for the Senate are written at the beginning of the session. The rules for an impeachment trial are written when the need occurs, and that would be right now, or these days. The point is, Faun, House and Senate are self-governing bodies, free to write their own rules as they see fit. There are probably rules in place in the House mandating that bills approved by the House be sent over within a certain time frame. No such rule seems to exist for Articles of Impeachment. Conversely, if McConnell gets a rule approved that a mere vote in the House is enough for the Senate to start the trial, that's just how it is. At the very least, I see nothing to prevent it.

Again, McConnell acting on his own, without the Articles of Impeachment formally sent over by the House, is not going to happen. So, this is all idle speculation.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Actually it's the Democrats who have disregarded their loyalty to the country for a Schiff Sham.
Y'all actually present a weak case for impeachment

How are they disregarding their loyalty to country?

By politicizing the law in order to steal an election they lost

Once AGAIN ---- an impeachment DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ELECTION. (A) the results of an election, once certified, are recorded forever; and (B) if a POTUS is removed it is his own VP who succeeds to the throne, not some other candidate from any election.

What the democrats tried is the example of stealing the election by trying to remove the winner.

Agreed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

Because it's sondland who created the confusion

You don't want Jiuliani to vindicate Trump and embarass Democrats' baseless impeachment...because Sondland created confusion?

WTF?

Why don't you just say the ony fucking thing that makes sense here - Jiuliani is the foremost witness in this case and ABSOLUTELY needs to come before the congress and testify. There is only one guy that knows more about what happened than him, and thats Trump himself.

Trump's already been vindicated because of all the whining about new witnesses by the democrats.

 

[bripat9643]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

He doesn't have a choice, moron. He can do the job he agreed to do, or get a new one.

 

[Mac-7]

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

Because it's sondland who created the confusion

You don't want Jiuliani to vindicate Trump and embarass Democrats' baseless impeachment...because Sondland created confusion?

WTF?

Why don't you just say the ony fucking thing that makes sense here - Jiuliani is the foremost witness in this case and ABSOLUTELY needs to come before the congress and testify. There is only one guy that knows more about what happened than him, and thats Trump himself.

Trump's already been vindicated because of all the whining about new witnesses by the democrats.

Precisely

the dems are admitting they had insufficient evidence when they voted to impeach trump

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

The Senate can proceed with the trail

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Nothing was confirmed stop lying

Nothing was confirmed all was hearsay and reading the presidents mind
In other words if I was president what would he do?

That is a delusional reading of the facts in evidence.

You're incorrect but don't let me stop your ignorance from showing because we need a good laugh in times like these when democrats start meltdowns.
From day one it's been one thing or another if the first thing didn't work you moved to another invented crime.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

Again, who said she's never going to send them?

And he's impeached already. Impeachment is not predicated upon the House sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever??

Not me.

What I said was if she doesn't send them over there is no impeachment. The Constitution is clear on this. "The Senate SHALL TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS". No trial, no impeachment.

Nazi is about to void her own Schitt Show.

"No trial, no impeachment."

^^^ Dumbfuck is as dumbfuck does

What happened to the crisis that he must be removed from office? What happened to the urgency?

 

[keepitreal]

Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

Where have you ever seen a trial rely on falsified documents
presented to a judge by an intelligence agency?

Doesn't address the question, now does it.

Neither does ^

 

[Olde Europe]

Precisely

the dems are admitting they had insufficient evidence when they voted to impeach trump

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points?

 

[AntonToo]

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

Because it's sondland who created the confusion

You don't want Jiuliani to vindicate Trump and embarass Democrats' baseless impeachment...because Sondland created confusion?

WTF?

Why don't you just say the ony fucking thing that makes sense here - Jiuliani is the foremost witness in this case and ABSOLUTELY needs to come before the congress and testify. There is only one guy that knows more about what happened than him, and thats Trump himself.

Trump's already been vindicated because of all the whining about new witnesses by the democrats.

No. Facts of the case are what they are, no “whining” can change that.

All the testimony and facts we have consistently lays out an effort by administration to pressure Ukraine into conducting and announcing a political investigation for Trump’s benefit.

As far as I’m concerned you are either ignorant or stupid to not see that.

 

[Mac-7]

Precisely

the dems are admitting they had insufficient evidence when they voted to impeach trump

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

 

[Olde Europe]

Precisely

the dems are admitting they had insufficient evidence when they voted to impeach trump

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?