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

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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

Derp...
IOW......leverage.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

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

Exactly. On her timetable.

 

[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.

Huh?

LOL...
You thought you could?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I also watched them testify. None of them said anything that incriminated Trump in anything. They just whined that they didn't like how he ran his foreign policy.

Keep repeating this to yourself over and over again: "hearsay is inadmissible. hearsay is inadmissible."

 

[AntonToo]

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

Can hold whatever you want, facts are facts.

Might won’t make this right.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Of course you can, dumbass. Lawyers do it all the time in trials.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

Show us that Trump is doing so, professor.

 

[easyt65]

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

McConnell is just humoring him because he knows the turd will start whining like a 2-year-old if he doesn't attend the meeting.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

Hutch claims he's worth $8 million. How could anyone that stupid make $8 million?

 

[Pogo]

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.

That DOESN'T "steal the election". If Rump is removed, the other part of the winning ticket still takes over.

 

[Mac-7]

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

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.

I would say the same to you

liberals cannot accept the fact that trump is president and have resorted to impeachment in your anger

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That DOESN'T "steal the election". If Rump is removed, the other part of the winning ticket still takes over.

Wrong, asshole. People voted for Trump. If he is removed, then you have cancelled their votes.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Can hold whatever you want, facts are facts.

Might won’t make this right.

Its right by default

if you dont remove trump you have lost

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

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

Exactly. On her timetable.

I seriously doubt he's sitting in his office doing nothing til the paperwork gets to him.

He has other things to keep him occupied in his office, and on the floor of the Senate.

and is likely going home for the holidays.

Sometimes I wonder who turns on you computer for you

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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

Exactly. On her timetable.

I seriously doubt he's sitting in his office doing nothing til the paperwork gets to him.

He has other things to keep him occupied in his office, and on the floor of the Senate.

and is likely going home for the holidays.

Sometimes I wonder who turns on you computer for you

Piglosi is making the Dims look like a joke.

 

[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?

LOL...
You thought you could?

Try posting something remotely coherent.

I'm rootin' for ya.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can't debunk witness testimony, dope.

?!

It is comments, like this one, you make that prove you are either a suffering Dementia patient who experiences bouts of a serious separation from reality, you are an easily emotionally-manipulated liberal talking point-parroting snowflake, or you are just a liar. I would ponder which of those might be the case, but I have better things to do...like watching paint dry.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'
1. The Democrats were unable to produce any 'witnesses' because everyone they called admitted they personally 'witnessed' NOTHING.

2. You can't debunk PERSONAL BELIEF / OPINION, which is the only thing every single one of the people Dems called to speak under oath gave. THAT is true. Democrats and snowflakes have proven that no matter what the FACTS may be, nothing can dissuade them from believing the BS / LIES fed to them by Democrats like Schiff and the fake news liberal MSM.


'You can't debunk witness testimony.'

Looks like someone has the short-term memory of a goldfish and / or seeks to re-write history.

It is obvious that you have 'forgotten', for example, that 'Testimony' given by former President Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment trial / law suit was not only 'debunked' by the Judge in the case - they found him in Contempt of Court for attempting to deceive the court / Jury and stripped him of his license to practice law in Arkansas for his complete lack of ethics displayed in the courtroom / during his 'testimony'.

It is obvious that you have forgotten how criminal former Obama CIA Director Brennan perpetrated Felony Perjury under oath during his 'testimony' by declaring he and his rogue CIA had NOT illegally spied on the US Senate....only to have D-Diane Feinstein produce the evidence that they had done so. To avoid Indictment / jail time the GOP and Dems cut an illegal deal where all Brennan had to do was appear before Congress, admit his crimes, and vow never to repeat them again (which he did).

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...004b18-18c6-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html


Thank you for reminding us all that when you post something not much is lost by choosing to SKIP IT.

Show us the perjury charges against any of the witnesses, dope.
In lieu of that, you cannot debunk anything they've testified to.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

That DOESN'T "steal the election". If Rump is removed, the other part of the winning ticket still takes over.

Trump received 63 million votes.

How many of those were cast for him solely because Pense was on the ballot?

 

[Nostra]

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.

Show us that Trump is doing so, professor.

Not my job to eliminate your ignorance. I'm here to mock it.