The Impeachment ‘Kill Switch’: McConnell Dismissal Rule Corners Dems, Blocks Antics as Trial Starts

[colfax_m]

There’s only one way to find out.

Actually, you already know how you would react if any new testimony cleared Trump.

That's false. I'm interested in hearing from everyone involved in Trump's behavior. Are you?

We’ve already heard from the witnesses that Schiff allowed to be heard. Why didn't he get them all?

They refused to testify.

There's a process to address that, why didn't the house use it? Evidently they weren't necessary to the case, because the house voted on the articles without them.

.

Yes. There is a process to handle that. It’s called a trial. Why shouldn’t the Senate call them?

 

[OKTexas]

An avenatti type of character would absolutely qualify.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Schumer has asked for 4 witnesses.
Mulvaney
Bolton
Blair
Duffey

Any reason you can think of that we shouldn’t hear from any of these people?

They were never part of the houses case. The house clams to have a slam dunk let them present it as is and see if the senate agrees.

.

Some people take more convincing than others. Are you interested in discovering the truth or not?

I know the truth, I've read the transcript of the call. What I'm not interested in is listening to the commie lies about it. None of their witnesses verified their contentions, so now they want the senate to do their job. If the house felt they needed more witnesses they should have followed the process to get them, not expect the senate try to short cut the process. You commies always want to take short cuts and try change the rules to tilt the playing field. Informed people are sick of your bullshit.

.

Having fact witnesses testify is “tilting” the playing field?

I don’t think so. I think that’s getting to the truth.

They couldn't be witnesses required to prove the case otherwise the house would have gone through the process to call them. They didn't so they are irrelevant to the house case.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

Like calling witnesses...

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both counts

Aid was released after the whistleblower was made known to Congress. Hardly exculpatory. And even so, not all aid was released. Millions couldn’t be moved due to the delays.

All aid was delivered within the parameters of the law. That's all that was required.

.

It was required that the aid be delivered in July, not September. There was no legal reason to hold it up, and in fact, it was illegal for the President to do so, for ANY REASON. Two top staffers at the OBM resigned over this hold. Several others staffers went to John Bolton and he told them to "talk to the lawyers" about it.

The aid was delivered because Trump got caught and for no other reason. The Ukrainians got the money two days after news of the whistleblower complaint hit the press. Right up until the time the news of the whistleblower's report came public, Trump's minions were pressuring Zelensky to announce investigations on CNN, and Zelensky had scheduled an interview with CNN, because he felt he had no choice - his people were dying waiting for that aid. That interview was cancelled when the funds were released.

I just want to add that Trump keeps claiming that Zelensky has repeatedly denied he was pressured. He has done no such thing. When Trump was sitting next to him telling the press there was "no pressure", had Zelensky said otherwise, it would have provoked an international incident, and for sure ended him getting aid from the USA. You don't call the President of the United States a "liar" in front of the whole world and there be no repercussions.

What Zelensky has said was that he was not going to get involved with US domestic politics. None of the investigations Trump has asked of the Ukrainians have been started, but the moment that Lev Parnas released those social media chats about the surveillance of Maria Yovanovich, Zelensky announed they were investigating this. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Yovanovich was investigating the people that Rudy Guliani was trying to get evidence from. That's why she had to go.

 

[colfax_m]

Not sure what you mean by that.

Schumer has asked for 4 witnesses.
Mulvaney
Bolton
Blair
Duffey

Any reason you can think of that we shouldn’t hear from any of these people?

They were never part of the houses case. The house clams to have a slam dunk let them present it as is and see if the senate agrees.

.

Some people take more convincing than others. Are you interested in discovering the truth or not?

I know the truth, I've read the transcript of the call. What I'm not interested in is listening to the commie lies about it. None of their witnesses verified their contentions, so now they want the senate to do their job. If the house felt they needed more witnesses they should have followed the process to get them, not expect the senate try to short cut the process. You commies always want to take short cuts and try change the rules to tilt the playing field. Informed people are sick of your bullshit.

.

Having fact witnesses testify is “tilting” the playing field?

I don’t think so. I think that’s getting to the truth.

They couldn't be witnesses required to prove the case otherwise the house would have gone through the process to call them. They didn't so they are irrelevant to the house case.

.

The case isn’t proven in the House. That’s what a trial is for.

 

[OKTexas]

An avenatti type of character would absolutely qualify.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Schumer has asked for 4 witnesses.
Mulvaney
Bolton
Blair
Duffey

Any reason you can think of that we shouldn’t hear from any of these people?

They were never part of the houses case. The house clams to have a slam dunk let them present it as is and see if the senate agrees.

.

Some people take more convincing than others. Are you interested in discovering the truth or not?

I know the truth, I've read the transcript of the call. What I'm not interested in is listening to the commie lies about it. None of their witnesses verified their contentions, so now they want the senate to do their job. If the house felt they needed more witnesses they should have followed the process to get them, not expect the senate try to short cut the process. You commies always want to take short cuts and try change the rules to tilt the playing field. Informed people are sick of your bullshit.

.

You must have covered your eyes and ears during the testimony of Vinland, Sondland, Volker and Morrison to come to that conclusion.

Assumptions and suppositions aren't evidence, that's all they provided. Even Sondland who initially said there were conditions placed on the aid, said that was his presumption, not what he was told by the president.

.

 

[hadit]

Actually, you already know how you would react if any new testimony cleared Trump.

That's false. I'm interested in hearing from everyone involved in Trump's behavior. Are you?

We’ve already heard from the witnesses that Schiff allowed to be heard. Why didn't he get them all?

They refused to testify.

And you think the Senate will have better luck? Face it, Schiff decided not to follow up and compel their testimony. Now he (and you) both want to have the Senate make up for his lack of diligence. It's not their job. If he wanted their testimony, he knew how to get it. He didn't want it that bad, so there's little need for it now either. He left things in a state where Trump has the power. He can let them testify if the Senate allows it or he can hold them back unless the Senate wants a lengthy court battle keeping them off the campaign trail. Schiff really messed this up, because the democrats know full well they're stuck in session until the trial is over.

Yes, I do. Trump has been pulling these bullshit moves of block all oversight by the House by refusing to allow staff to testify and by sending over no documents, and telling staffers to ignore supoenas. The Courts have thrown out ever one of Trump's arguments and briefs and called their assertions of "executive privilege", specious, and in violation of the obligtion of the House to provide oversight under the Constitution. The witnesses have been ordered to appear, and the court has order the documents to be provided. William Barr's Department of Justice, whose job it is to uphold the laws of the land, are defending the President on this obstruction.

Trump thinks that if this goes to the SC, he'll win, and he's going to keep appealling these decisions until they get to the SC. That is why the impeachment has to go ahead now. Trump has done nothing to stop Russian interference in the 2020 election, and has actually handcuffed the security services of the government in preventing such interference, by refusing to declare this a problem and to devote the necessary resources to protecting the elections.

So yes, the Senate needs to do it's job here and continue to call witnesses and get documents, because their oath of office requires it.

Nonsense. The House wasted weeks of time with the impeachment, time they could have been using to fast track the case to the SC, time they've lost forever. Face reality, the House democrats messed this one up, big time, because they did not want to do the heavy lifting required to compel testimony. Quite frankly, McConnell should slow walk this whole thing right through the campaign season, keeping all the Senators in their seats 6 days a week, unable to campaign. We'd see democrats defecting left and right, vowing to vote for acquittal if only he'd allow them to get out of there.

 

[hadit]

Actually, you already know how you would react if any new testimony cleared Trump.

That's false. I'm interested in hearing from everyone involved in Trump's behavior. Are you?

We’ve already heard from the witnesses that Schiff allowed to be heard. Why didn't he get them all?

They refused to testify.

There's a process to address that, why didn't the house use it? Evidently they weren't necessary to the case, because the house voted on the articles without them.

.

Yes. There is a process to handle that. It’s called a trial. Why shouldn’t the Senate call them?

Because it's not the Senate's job to make up for the House's incompetence, that's why. Trump holds the winning hand here, because he knows he can force this thing to drag on right through campaign season because the Senate has to be in session 6 days a week until the trial is over. That's tremendous leverage to peel off democrat Senators who see their poll numbers dropping day after day and being unable to do anything about them.

 

[Nostra]

Biden had EVERYTHING to do with this....if he hadn't have said...

NONE of this would have started as even a really dumbas . Like yourself would have gone nuts if Trump's VPBwould have been in Ukraine and tried to extort the EXACT SAME THING!

DemonRATS ate TRYONG LIKE ALL HELL TO PROTECT Biden, who may NOT be their candidate with the newest Reuters poll showing BERNIE IS TIED WITH JOJO!...ALSO Jojo has Incriminated the Surrender zmonkey simply STATING Zto the president...IF YOU DOUBT ME CALL THE PRESIDENT....NOW thinking about it, let's get Jojo AND THE SURRENDER MONKEY TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH!!!

Only Biden didn’t demand personal favors

Trump did

Um, he wanted an investigation into the company paying his son $83,000 per month to do nothing stopped.

Once again you are wrong. Your perfect streak is alive.

If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

Good thing we never agree. That makes me always right, you always wrong.

The problem with the video the Purge posted is that those weren't Biden's terms for the aid - those were the terms the US Government, including the House and the Senate, established for the aid. Furthermore, Biden was also speaking on behalf of the European Union, NATO, and the International Monetary Fund, all of whom were holding on to further aid and loans until Shokin was gone.

It's pretty hard to imagine today that McConnell and Graham actually voted for the prosecutor's removal but they did and somehow the entire Republican Senate has conveniently forgotten all about it. Or the grateful thanks they gave to Biden when he accomplished the job he was assigned.

Link to those entities sending Quid Pro Joe to blackmail the Ukraine?

 

[Nostra]

An avenatti type of character would absolutely qualify.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Schumer has asked for 4 witnesses.
Mulvaney
Bolton
Blair
Duffey

Any reason you can think of that we shouldn’t hear from any of these people?

They were never part of the houses case. The house clams to have a slam dunk let them present it as is and see if the senate agrees.

.

Some people take more convincing than others. Are you interested in discovering the truth or not?

I know the truth, I've read the transcript of the call. What I'm not interested in is listening to the commie lies about it. None of their witnesses verified their contentions, so now they want the senate to do their job. If the house felt they needed more witnesses they should have followed the process to get them, not expect the senate try to short cut the process. You commies always want to take short cuts and try change the rules to tilt the playing field. Informed people are sick of your bullshit.

.

Having fact witnesses testify is “tilting” the playing field?

I don’t think so. I think that’s getting to the truth.

Dimwingers don’t have fact witnesses. They have hearsay and feelings.

 

[Nostra]

There’s only one way to find out.

Actually, you already know how you would react if any new testimony cleared Trump.

That's false. I'm interested in hearing from everyone involved in Trump's behavior. Are you?

We’ve already heard from the witnesses that Schiff allowed to be heard. Why didn't he get them all?

They refused to testify.

And you think the Senate will have better luck? Face it, Schiff decided not to follow up and compel their testimony. Now he (and you) both want to have the Senate make up for his lack of diligence. It's not their job. If he wanted their testimony, he knew how to get it. He didn't want it that bad, so there's little need for it now either. He left things in a state where Trump has the power. He can let them testify if the Senate allows it or he can hold them back unless the Senate wants a lengthy court battle keeping them off the campaign trail. Schiff really messed this up, because the democrats know full well they're stuck in session until the trial is over.

Schitthead knew there was no case, so he didn’t try to make one. This way they can whine and cry about a cover up.

 

[Nostra]

Actually, you already know how you would react if any new testimony cleared Trump.

That's false. I'm interested in hearing from everyone involved in Trump's behavior. Are you?

We’ve already heard from the witnesses that Schiff allowed to be heard. Why didn't he get them all?

They refused to testify.

And you think the Senate will have better luck? Face it, Schiff decided not to follow up and compel their testimony. Now he (and you) both want to have the Senate make up for his lack of diligence. It's not their job. If he wanted their testimony, he knew how to get it. He didn't want it that bad, so there's little need for it now either. He left things in a state where Trump has the power. He can let them testify if the Senate allows it or he can hold them back unless the Senate wants a lengthy court battle keeping them off the campaign trail. Schiff really messed this up, because the democrats know full well they're stuck in session until the trial is over.

Yes, I do. Trump has been pulling these bullshit moves of block all oversight by the House by refusing to allow staff to testify and by sending over no documents, and telling staffers to ignore supoenas. The Courts have thrown out ever one of Trump's arguments and briefs and called their assertions of "executive privilege", specious, and in violation of the obligtion of the House to provide oversight under the Constitution. The witnesses have been ordered to appear, and the court has order the documents to be provided. William Barr's Department of Justice, whose job it is to uphold the laws of the land, are defending the President on this obstruction.

Trump thinks that if this goes to the SC, he'll win, and he's going to keep appealling these decisions until they get to the SC. That is why the impeachment has to go ahead now. Trump has done nothing to stop Russian interference in the 2020 election, and has actually handcuffed the security services of the government in preventing such interference, by refusing to declare this a problem and to devote the necessary resources to protecting the elections.

So yes, the Senate needs to do it's job here and continue to call witnesses and get documents, because their oath of office requires it.

Appealing to the Supreme Court is how our system works, Dummy.

You just don’t like it.

 

[Nostra]

McConnell is threatening that his shenanigans are acceptable but if Democrats try shenanigans he will stop the trial

Karma, bitch.

 

[The Original Tree]

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both counts

Aid was released after the whistleblower was made known to Congress. Hardly exculpatory. And even so, not all aid was released. Millions couldn’t be moved due to the delays.

All aid was delivered within the parameters of the law. That's all that was required.

.

It was required that the aid be delivered in July, not September. There was no legal reason to hold it up, and in fact, it was illegal for the President to do so, for ANY REASON. Two top staffers at the OBM resigned over this hold. Several others staffers went to John Bolton and he told them to "talk to the lawyers" about it.

The aid was delivered because Trump got caught and for no other reason. The Ukrainians got the money two days after news of the whistleblower complaint hit the press. Right up until the time the news of the whistleblower's report came public, Trump's minions were pressuring Zelensky to announce investigations on CNN, and Zelensky had scheduled an interview with CNN, because he felt he had no choice - his people were dying waiting for that aid. That interview was cancelled when the funds were released.

I just want to add that Trump keeps claiming that Zelensky has repeatedly denied he was pressured. He has done no such thing. When Trump was sitting next to him telling the press there was "no pressure", had Zelensky said otherwise, it would have provoked an international incident, and for sure ended him getting aid from the USA. You don't call the President of the United States a "liar" in front of the whole world and there be no repercussions.

What Zelensky has said was that he was not going to get involved with US domestic politics. None of the investigations Trump has asked of the Ukrainians have been started, but the moment that Lev Parnas released those social media chats about the surveillance of Maria Yovanovich, Zelensky announed they were investigating this. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Yovanovich was investigating the people that Rudy Guliani was trying to get evidence from. That's why she had to go.

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both counts

Aid was released after the whistleblower was made known to Congress. Hardly exculpatory. And even so, not all aid was released. Millions couldn’t be moved due to the delays.

All aid was delivered within the parameters of the law. That's all that was required.

.

It was required that the aid be delivered in July, not September. There was no legal reason to hold it up, and in fact, it was illegal for the President to do so, for ANY REASON. Two top staffers at the OBM resigned over this hold. Several others staffers went to John Bolton and he told them to "talk to the lawyers" about it.

The aid was delivered because Trump got caught and for no other reason. The Ukrainians got the money two days after news of the whistleblower complaint hit the press. Right up until the time the news of the whistleblower's report came public, Trump's minions were pressuring Zelensky to announce investigations on CNN, and Zelensky had scheduled an interview with CNN, because he felt he had no choice - his people were dying waiting for that aid. That interview was cancelled when the funds were released.

I just want to add that Trump keeps claiming that Zelensky has repeatedly denied he was pressured. He has done no such thing. When Trump was sitting next to him telling the press there was "no pressure", had Zelensky said otherwise, it would have provoked an international incident, and for sure ended him getting aid from the USA. You don't call the President of the United States a "liar" in front of the whole world and there be no repercussions.

What Zelensky has said was that he was not going to get involved with US domestic politics. None of the investigations Trump has asked of the Ukrainians have been started, but the moment that Lev Parnas released those social media chats about the surveillance of Maria Yovanovich, Zelensky announed they were investigating this. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Yovanovich was investigating the people that Rudy Guliani was trying to get evidence from. That's why she had to go.

1.) Joe Biden threatens to with hold Aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fires the prosecutor investigating his son.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor.
Congress takes no Action.

2.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Guatemala unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Guatemala complies
Congress takes no Action.

3.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Honduras unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Honduras complies
Congress takes no Action.

4.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to El Salvador unless they enforce their own immigration law.

El Salvador complies
Congress takes no Action.

5.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Mexico unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Mexico complies
Congress takes no Action.

6.) President Trump asks the Government of Ukraine to look in to corruption per the joint Anti-Corruption treaty between us.

Ukraine takes no action.
The Pelosi Lead House of Representatives goes postal and demands impeachment and investigations after spending 3 years investigating Russian Collusion only to have it proven to be a hoax, and failing at impeachment after The Mueller Report turned out to be a Dud.

One wonders why there was such an interest in Ukraine and money it was getting that even The Slightest Delay sent Pelosi and Friends in to epileptic fits.

My conclusion?

The Obama Administration and Friends, had insider trading going on in The Ukraine, and they lost a ton of money over the delay of Foreign Aid, and that is why they cared at all about it.

 

[OKTexas]

ANYTHING a DIM DEM would attempt...........

Like calling witnesses...

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

So you're saying the house voted on articles that were insufficiently supported?

.

Depends on your definition of sufficiently supported. Many Trump supporters have a far higher definition since they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to a somewhat extreme degree.

It's you commies that are demanding more witnesses and documents, evidently you don't think the case has already been proven. Rep Jefferies, one of the house managers, said on TV yesterday that the facts haven't been disputed, which is an outright lie. The call transcript disputes them. But hey feel free to keep pushing the commie talking points, that's all you've been doing through out this thread.

.

 

[Indeependent]

Are there any Liberals on this board who aren't emotionally and mentally disturbed?
Are there any Right of Liberal people on this Thread who realize the Liberals on this Thread are psychotic...or outright retarded?

When I got back, I went into therapy. Mostly trips to the Military Shrink, drugs and keep working. I was listed as not sane. In fact, if I were to try and get out of the service, it would have been denied. Unlike the Army, USAF doesn't have a 50% club. That went on for about 9 months. Then one day, they issued me a letter saying I was Sane. That means that the United States has certified that I am Sane and I have a letter to prove it.

You run around claiming that anyone that disagrees with you are insane. I have documented proof I am sane and I disagree with you. Now, what proof do you have that you are sane? Sorry, just because you say so doesn't work. Crazy People don't realize they are insane and will deny it. Remember, I have been on both sides of that fence. So are you sane? And do you have documented proof that you are.

I never make decisions based on anyone’s opinion.
I make decisions based upon facts upon which a flow chart would be comprised.
The fact is that every claim made against Trump has held up for 1 to 3 days before being discredited.
There is a point where fact vs fiction becomes a fantasy, not a reality.

All politicians are corrupt; this fact has nothing to do with a galley of penguins gathering for an “Impeachment” based on psychosis.

1 to 3 days? What Alternate Universe are you living in? IN this one we have a President called Trump. In yours, is Mary Poppins President? Step #1 to getting better is to stop with his crap of giving Trump all those free rides. No more "Here, Hold my Beer" moments to cover up for his last "Here Hold My Beer" Moment that was used to cover up .......

Try reading my post again...
I am not talking about the 3+ long farce, I am discussing the fact that every new angle to keep this farce going lasts from 1 to 3 days and then the psychotic Liberals come up with a new angle.

Try reading the news...everyday,

 

[The Original Tree]

They were never part of the houses case. The house clams to have a slam dunk let them present it as is and see if the senate agrees.

.

Some people take more convincing than others. Are you interested in discovering the truth or not?

I know the truth, I've read the transcript of the call. What I'm not interested in is listening to the commie lies about it. None of their witnesses verified their contentions, so now they want the senate to do their job. If the house felt they needed more witnesses they should have followed the process to get them, not expect the senate try to short cut the process. You commies always want to take short cuts and try change the rules to tilt the playing field. Informed people are sick of your bullshit.

.

Having fact witnesses testify is “tilting” the playing field?

I don’t think so. I think that’s getting to the truth.

They couldn't be witnesses required to prove the case otherwise the house would have gone through the process to call them. They didn't so they are irrelevant to the house case.

.

The case isn’t proven in the House. That’s what a trial is for.

Wrong. That's why The House Presents The Articles. They are supposed to build a Bi-Partisan supported Case for The Articles and submit them to The Senate to be evaluated. The Case is over, and only Jury Deliberations remain.

 

[Indeependent]

Are there any Liberals on this board who aren't emotionally and mentally disturbed?
Are there any Right of Liberal people on this Thread who realize the Liberals on this Thread are psychotic...or outright retarded?

When I got back, I went into therapy. Mostly trips to the Military Shrink, drugs and keep working. I was listed as not sane. In fact, if I were to try and get out of the service, it would have been denied. Unlike the Army, USAF doesn't have a 50% club. That went on for about 9 months. Then one day, they issued me a letter saying I was Sane. That means that the United States has certified that I am Sane and I have a letter to prove it.

You run around claiming that anyone that disagrees with you are insane. I have documented proof I am sane and I disagree with you. Now, what proof do you have that you are sane? Sorry, just because you say so doesn't work. Crazy People don't realize they are insane and will deny it. Remember, I have been on both sides of that fence. So are you sane? And do you have documented proof that you are.

I never make decisions based on anyone’s opinion.
I make decisions based upon facts upon which a flow chart would be comprised.
The fact is that every claim made against Trump has held up for 1 to 3 days before being discredited.
There is a point where fact vs fiction becomes a fantasy, not a reality.

All politicians are corrupt; this fact has nothing to do with a galley of penguins gathering for an “Impeachment” based on psychosis.

1 to 3 days? What Alternate Universe are you living in? IN this one we have a President called Trump. In yours, is Mary Poppins President? Step #1 to getting better is to stop with his crap of giving Trump all those free rides. No more "Here, Hold my Beer" moments to cover up for his last "Here Hold My Beer" Moment that was used to cover up .......

By the way, your buddy Obama did nothing for American IT workers...Trump has.

 

[colfax_m]

Like calling witnesses...

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

So you're saying the house voted on articles that were insufficiently supported?

.

Depends on your definition of sufficiently supported. Many Trump supporters have a far higher definition since they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to a somewhat extreme degree.

It's you commies that are demanding more witnesses and documents, evidently you don't think the case has already been proven. Rep Jefferies, one of the house managers, said on TV yesterday that the facts haven't been disputed, which is an outright lie. The call transcript disputes them. But hey feel free to keep pushing the commie talking points, that's all you've been doing thorough out this thread.

.

Lol. Commies. Get a grip.

Why don’t you want to hear from these witnesses or see these documents? Worried about what they have to say or something else?

 

[Shawnee_b]

Like calling witnesses...

An avenatti type of character would absolutely qualify.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Schumer has asked for 4 witnesses.
Mulvaney
Bolton
Blair
Duffey

Any reason you can think of that we shouldn’t hear from any of these people?

Yeah, they are liars

 

[OKTexas]

a witness for what.
No witness for the dems has come forth with first hand knowledge.
It's all been hearsay
Les Parnas is a perfect example

well I never talked with Trump personally, but I know he would do it.

If your criticism is lack of first hand witnesses, then you must be in favor of calling people with first hand knowledge of why the aid was held.

ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both counts

Aid was released after the whistleblower was made known to Congress. Hardly exculpatory. And even so, not all aid was released. Millions couldn’t be moved due to the delays.

All aid was delivered within the parameters of the law. That's all that was required.

.

Still incorrect. Haven’t I showed you the testimony that contradicts this? I think I have. Surprising how few people know this.

One of your fellow commies provided an article claiming it wasn't, of course he ignored a paragraph in the article that said congress gave the DOD an extra year to deliver the aid. The article was dated in Nov, and said the remainder would be distributed within a few weeks, meaning all has been delivered at this point and within the parameters of the law.

.