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.

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

He can't start the trial until the case is given to him. If he does, it won't be legitimate and won't be binding on the articles of impeachment. I seriously doubt Roberts would even entertain such nonsense.

 

[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?

The Senate can proceed with the trail

Of course they can. But it will be a mock trial not binding on the articles of impeachment they don't have. Democrats won't participate and likely neither will the Chief Justice.

 

[Faun]

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?

The expediency dissipated when Republican Senators announced they are working with Impeached Trump to acquit him with a biased trial.

 

[Faun]

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

 

[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

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

 

[Faun]

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

 

[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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

 

[Faun]

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

 

[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

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

 

[Faun]

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

 

[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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

 

[Olde Europe]

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

So, no more witnesses at trials. Because the need for witnesses demonstrates insufficient evidence, and thus the cases need to be dismissed.

Really, Mac, you should put something on that gashing head wound of yours.

While we're at it, read this from beginning to end, and don't come back before you're done. Okay?

 

[Mac-7]

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

‎www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=kmtM7Blc&id=40025C0810D96BF7E4B1072DBB5BFD5A22FA45F1&thid=OIP.kmtM7Blc_mFsJXQOR3HtswAAAA&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FObama-in-Muslim-dress-.jpg&exph=512&expw=303&q=obama+wearing+muslim+clothes&simid=608004748109744495&selectedindex=2&vt=4&eim=1,2,3,4,6,8,10&sim=11

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify.

If the courts agree with trump then tough tits for the democrats

 

[Mac-7]

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

So, no more witnesses at trials. Because the need for witnesses demonstrates insufficient evidence, and thus the cases need to be dismissed.

Really, Mac, you should put something on that gashing head wound of yours.

While we're at it, read this from beginning to end, and don't come back before you're done. Okay?

While we're at it, read this from beginning to end, and don't come back before you're done. Okay?

since you put it that way I wont read it or comment

 

[Faun]

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

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

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

 

[Faun]

‎www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=kmtM7Blc&id=40025C0810D96BF7E4B1072DBB5BFD5A22FA45F1&thid=OIP.kmtM7Blc_mFsJXQOR3HtswAAAA&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FObama-in-Muslim-dress-.jpg&exph=512&expw=303&q=obama+wearing+muslim+clothes&simid=608004748109744495&selectedindex=2&vt=4&eim=1,2,3,4,6,8,10&sim=11

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify.

If the courts agree with trump then tough tits for the democrats

Looks like the "tough tits" landed on Impeached Trump's dyed hair as the House chose to charge him with obstruction instead.

 

[Hellokitty]

Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.

In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.

Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.

What is the difference between McConnell not allowing Schumer to call these witness and Schiff not allowing Nunes to call in witnesses like the whistleblower and others? Democrats in the house had opportunity to subpoena whoever they wanted in making the case for impeachment while they denied that same right to the republicans in the house...

Either way I'm sure McConnell is grateful for democrats gift that will assure him re-election in 2020. Liberals screwed up with impeaching TRUMP which is resulting in republicans uniting around TRUMP.

 

[AntonToo]

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

Can you imagine a real trial where witnesses could simply refuse court order to show up?

Can you come up with a single reason, aside from guilty conscience, why Trump admin refused witnesses and documents?

I can’t and that’s why along with the evidence we have I’m certain Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged by the two articles on Abuse of Power and gross Obstruction.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

As far as I'm concerned you're ignorant son of a bitch. No facts have been uncovered. No reasonable prosecutor would try this case due to lack of evidence of criminal Acts

 

[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

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?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that