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

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Might as well have a mock trial since we had a mock impeachment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

That's funny when you had a biased impeachment inquiry turnarounds Fair play if that's how you idiots want to do it

 

[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.

Thats lib illogic to the extreem

pelosi and her flunkies schiff and nadler could have petitioned the courts but chose not to

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Democrats can call all the witnesses they want all the witnesses that they had during the inquiry is all they can call

 

[Mac-7]

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.

The bottom line is that dems voted to impeach without the evidence they needed to make it stick

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Pelosi didnt bother to obtain a court order from real judges

she chose to hold a kangaroo court instead

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Pelosi didnt bother to obtain a court order from real judges

she chose to hold a kangaroo court instead

There is now a court order for McGhan(you know, that character from Mueller report on Trump’s Obstruction efforts) to come testify, that took 8 fucking months after his refusal to come testify was referred to courts.

You know when he will testify? NOPE and nietger does anyone else because now it will probably take about as long for appeal.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

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.

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.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

 

[AntonToo]

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.

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.

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.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Pelosi didnt bother to obtain a court order from real judges

she chose to hold a kangaroo court instead

There is now a court order for McGhan(you know, that character from Mueller report on Trump’s Obstruction efforts) to come testify, that took 8 fucking months after his refusal to come testify was referred to courts.

You know when he will testify? NOPE and nietger does anyone else because now it will probably take about as long for appeal.

I’m sorry that libs find the judicial system too burdensome

Its the same for us when some sniveling lib lawyer sues to stop an executive order that trump issues

Then months or years later the lib injunction is overturned by the highest court

 

[Nostra]

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?

So you agree he has yet to be impeached.

 

[Nostra]

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...​

Thanks for once again confirming that he isn't impeached until they present it to the Senate.

Nice job, Dumbfuck.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

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.

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.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

I dont know the inside scoop on the trump legal defense plan

we are all just spectators in this struggle between democrat sore losers and our duly elected president

 

[Nostra]

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?

Exactly.

Dimwingers were wailing for weeks how Trump is a threat to our "democracy" and our national security.

I guess Dimwingers no longer care about saving our "democracy" and our national security.

 

[Nostra]

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.

You keep making the case Trump is not yet impeached.

Nice job, Dummy.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Lies.

Trump legally challenged House subpoenas in court. Nazi, Schifferbrains, and Nadless were in too big of a hurry to let our system work. Instead, they plowed thru with nothing but hearsay.

They are clowns.

 

[Nostra]

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.

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.

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.

And the Executive Branch has the authority to challenge those subpoenas in court. Your ignorance of how our system works is astounding, but expected.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Pelosi didnt bother to obtain a court order from real judges

she chose to hold a kangaroo court instead

There is now a court order for McGhan(you know, that character from Mueller report on Trump’s Obstruction efforts) to come testify, that took 8 fucking months after his refusal to come testify was referred to courts.

You know when he will testify? NOPE and nietger does anyone else because now it will probably take about as long for appeal.

So?

 

[Nostra]

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.

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.

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.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

 

[Mac-7]

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

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

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.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now