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

[M14 Shooter]

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.

If I were McConnell I'd set the trial start date for, say, January 27.
If the Democrats show up, the trial proceeds.
If not, he holds a vote for dismissal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“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.

None of that is relevant to the fact the executive branch has the right to force the house to take it to court to enforce a subpoena.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

Leverage?

In the Senate?

I like the way this guy put it on a Yahoo message board.

"If she holds the articles up from being given to the Senate, McConnell should hold a vote to dismiss the Articles in abstentia, Telling the dem's that whenever they decide to send the Articles over the Senate may or may not consider them again"

Yes, leverage. Leverage on McConnell. Not the Senate.

 

[Auld Phart]

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

Leverage?

In the Senate?

I like the way this guy put it on a Yahoo message board.

"If she holds the articles up from being given to the Senate, McConnell should hold a vote to dismiss the Articles in abstentia, Telling the dem's that whenever they decide to send the Articles over the Senate may or may not consider them again"

Yes, leverage. Leverage on McConnell. Not the Senate.

she has no leverage.

her job is done, with the exception of sending the paperwork.

all she is doing now, is holding up McConnell from doing his job.

and she has NO input in how he does it.

 

[Nostra]

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

Leverage?

In the Senate?

I like the way this guy put it on a Yahoo message board.

"If she holds the articles up from being given to the Senate, McConnell should hold a vote to dismiss the Articles in abstentia, Telling the dem's that whenever they decide to send the Articles over the Senate may or may not consider them again"

Yes, leverage. Leverage on McConnell. Not the Senate.

Didn't work. Nazi has no leverage outside of the House. None.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you did watch, then you're either dumb or lying. I suspect some combination of both.

So if I don't go along with your already debunked BS then I must be lying, huh, lil' lying snowflake? That's as stupid as Democrats declaring anyone who asserts their Constitutional Rights in their defense is definitely GUILTY.


You sound like Schiff and Maxine Waters: 'I know the President is guilty....I just don't have the evidence'

Bwuhahahahaha........

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

How did she gain leverage by not sending it to the Senate? How did that "motivate" Mitch? Be specific.

Mitch has a timetable as well.

 

[Auld Phart]

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

How did she gain leverage by not sending it to the Senate? How did that "motivate" Mitch? Be specific.

Mitch has a timetable as well.

does he?

His 'timetable' doesn't start til Pelosi sends him the paperwork.

How is that going to work out?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Snowflake logic is so hard to follow...its literally like a snowflake caught on at at the mercy of the wind.

Snowflake logic is so hard to follow..

That happens to folks with your disabilities.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I poster the Whistle lower Law itself with a link.

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE, perpetuated by snowflakes who have refused to even read the law, who prefer to continue to parrot instead what proven Ling Dems and fake news MSM tells them.

The LIE D-Adam Schiff (and snowflakes like DragonLady) professed, that the 'whistle Blower' is afforded the protections of ANONYMITY and IMMUNITY are completely proven to be nothing but a lie within the actual law.

The FACT that the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that NO CRIME had been proven to have been committed and there were NO WITNESSES has already been confirmed through multiple links that have been posted numerous times.

Snowflakes such as yourself continue to perpetuate the lie that claims to the contrary have been substantiated through testimony and / or documentation has been repeatedly DEBUNKED. The FACT is not one person who testified in Schiff's coup Impeachment circus substantiated any of the FALSE claims about the Whistle Blower HOAX.

- The non-qualifying WB is admittedly a Trump-hating, Democratic party-supporting, Biden-connected, Brennan-subordinate Deep State CIA agent who admitted they did not personally witness anything, that their complaint was based on hearsay.

- Again, no one who testified under oath is a 'witness' because NONE of them 'witnessed' anything. Even Sondland was forced to admit his BELIEFS were based on things he HEARD from other people, nothing he heard / witnessed himself.

- When directly asked under oath to state what crimes the President committed, what Impeachable offenses he committed, NOT ONE could name 1 crime, 1 Impeachable offense.

The complaint was NOT corroborated - you LIE!

There is a finite number of people who actually listened in on and participated in the actual phone call between the US President and the Ukraine PM, and not one of them have substantiated the false claims made by the Democrats. NOT ONE!

The President did not hesitate to release the transcripts of the phone call, and the entire case for Impeachment for the Democrats completely depends on the pathetic Bill-Clinton-esque tactic of twisting the meaning of 1 single word. For Bill Clnton that word was 'SEX'. For the Democrats and their justification for Impeachment is THEIR INTERPRETTION of the word 'US'.

The Democrats broke laws, violated the Constitution, trampled citizens' rights, endangered our national security, became 'dangerous to our republic', manufactured evidence / altered official evidence / documents, engaged in Sedition, set a new speed record for rushing to Impeachment with the weakest case in US history - based on their partisan definition of the word 'US' in a phone call none of them witnessed / were part of.

Holy shit!

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I don't have to lie or provide a link. I watched all of the testimony. I know it to be true.
You should have watched or read the transcripts yourself.

How do you know it to be true? Furthermore, it was all hearsay. In other words, not admissible.

How do you know it to be true? Furthermore, it was all hearsay. In other words, not admissible.

I know it to be true because I watched the testimonies, dope. They corroborated the WB's complaint.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

A Schiff Sham should be ignored

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

What has that to do with Pelosi claiming leverage over the Senate?

That meeting was not scheduled before.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

I suspect Schumer's crawled to McConnell in the hopes of getting something he wants. Chances are slim.

Actually, chances are quite good that at least 4 republican Senators would vote to hear witnesses.

 

[Nostra]

If you did watch, then you're either dumb or lying. I suspect some combination of both.

So if I don't go along with your already debunked BS then I must be lying, huh, lil' lying snowflake? That's as stupid as Democrats declaring anyone who asserts their Constitutional Rights in their defense is definitely GUILTY.


You sound like Schiff and Maxine Waters: 'I know the President is guilty....I just don't have the evidence'

Bwuhahahahaha........

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

Huh?

 

[Nostra]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

What has that to do with Pelosi claiming leverage over the Senate?

That meeting was not scheduled before.

You mean the meeting where Mitch told Cryin' Chucky to pound sand?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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

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

Nonsense.
There is no such "authority". A lawful subpoena by definition, is just that. There is no reason for a court to order that it is indeed lawful.

The admin is not challenging anything. They have just refused to comply.
Any judgement regarding the subpoenas would be an order to comply with the subpoenas. Just as it was with McGahn.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

I don't see where Nazi Pelousy will be there when Mitch tells Cryin' Chucky to pound sand.

Oops!

Wanna try again?

Derp....
She's obviously gained enouh leverage to motivate Mitch to get busy with Schumer.

Leverage?

In the Senate?

I like the way this guy put it on a Yahoo message board.

"If she holds the articles up from being given to the Senate, McConnell should hold a vote to dismiss the Articles in abstentia, Telling the dem's that whenever they decide to send the Articles over the Senate may or may not consider them again"

Yes, leverage. Leverage on McConnell. Not the Senate.

What leverage do you think she has on McConnell? He basically told her to fuck off in his last statement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

does he?
His 'timetable' doesn't start til Pelosi sends him the paperwork.
How is that going to work out?

McConnell can schedule the trial for whenever he wants.
If he does, and the Democrats don't show up, he can call a vote for immediate dismissal of the charges.

 

[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.

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

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

Nonsense.
There is no such "authority". A lawful subpoena by definition, is just that. There is no reason for a court to order that it is indeed lawful.

The admin is not challenging anything. They have just refused to comply.
Any judgement regarding the subpoenas would be an order to comply with the subpoenas. Just as it was with McGahn.

lies.

They are challenged in court. You are a moron.

 

[AntonToo]

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

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.

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

But you have a head on shoulders. USE IT, even if it means coming to conclusions you don’t like.

Don’t be apprehensive to call a spade what it is.