Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The House rested it's case and stated that the Evidence they had wasLol. Commies. Get a grip.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.
.
Why don’t you want to hear from these witnesses or see these documents? Worried about what they have to say or something else?
They refused to testify.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?
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?
ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both countsa 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.
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.
If they couldn't prove their case when they were given unlimited resources based on the hoax of Russian Collusion over a 3 year period where they wasted our tax dollars and our time burning through tens of millions of dollars, when The President gave them access toThey refused to testify.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?
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?
As I said they house didn't find them necessary for their case, they should't be needed now for them to prove it. Are you dense or just stupid?
.
I mentioned this on a previous post. In every criminal court lawyers for the defendant can ask that case be dismissed. GOP in Senate shouldn’t waste 15 minutes on this bullshit.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is as of now including in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial rules a “kill switch” that effectively allows for the president’s legal team to seek an immediate verdict or dismissal of the case should Democrats engage in any shenanigans like they did in the House process.
The revelation comes after the House finally late last week formally sent the Articles of Impeachment it adopted before Christmas—after holding them for more than a month without transmission—to the U.S. Senate, thereby triggering the start of a Senate trial. The Senate will formally commence its trial procedures in votes this coming week, and while some Republicans want to outright dismiss the charges altogether from the outset, others believe a trial should take place.
In so finally transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also named impeachment case managers—the Democrats who will present and manage the House’s case to the Senate—last week. They include House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Both Schiff and Nadler were widely panned for the highly unfair process they ran in the House of Representatives, and many Senate Republicans do not trust them to refrain from playing games that seek to make the Senate trial unfair to the president as the highly partisan process in the House ended up.
Republicans on the House side, who were essentially powerless to stop the Democrats’ shenanigans since they are in the minority in the lower chamber, are warning Senate Republicans to be on the lookout for Schiff’s gamesmanship and that from his ilk.
“It’s incumbent upon the Senate to preserve the right of the President’s legal team to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss this sham impeachment anytime they..
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
------------
“killswitch” will be thrown only if any Dem pulls a ruthless, dishonest, crooked stunt for their own political gain.
Dems: OMG. That means we’re finished....Flushed, ....Kaput.....where is that trump RED MAGA CAP?....ROTFLMFAO!!!
ANYTHING a DIM DEM would attempt...........I wonder what they consider a “dishonest, crooked stunt”?
Like calling witnesses...
What about lying under oath?How many witnesses testified publicly during the Clinton trial?ANYTHING a DIM DEM would attempt...........I wonder what they consider a “dishonest, crooked stunt”?
Like calling witnesses...
Zero sound about right?
People don’t like to discuss blow jobs in public
Because Democrats are shit bags that have no case.ANYTHING a DIM DEM would attempt...........I wonder what they consider a “dishonest, crooked stunt”?
Like calling witnesses...
Dumbass. Don't you people EVER tire of your hypocrisy?
"
Nadler dismisses GOP witness requests"
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has dismissed a Republican request for eight witnesses to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, including House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the whistleblower who first brought forward the allegations about President Trump's contacts with Ukraine.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in a letter Monday to the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), took issue with the witnesses the Republicans intended to call.
Nadler dismisses GOP witness requests
They refused to testify.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?
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?
As I said they house didn't find them necessary for their case, they should't be needed now for them to prove it. Are you dense or just stupid?
.
ukraine got their aid and there was no biden investigation so you're wrong on both countsIf 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.
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.
.
Riddle me this...when is the last time Congress passed a “true budget?”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.
.
The paragraph wasn’t ignored. The fact that Congress had to pass the same appropriation again is proof that Trump failed to distribute the original appropriation as the law required.
Congress had to pass another law to make up for Trump’s failure.
Lol. Commies. Get a grip.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.
.
Why don’t you want to hear from these witnesses or see these documents? Worried about what they have to say or something else?
They had to pass it again because the government is running on temporary spending measures.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.
.
The paragraph wasn’t ignored. The fact that Congress had to pass the same appropriation again is proof that Trump failed to distribute the original appropriation as the law required.
Congress had to pass another law to make up for Trump’s failure.
Probably when Newt Gingrich was House Speaker.Riddle me this...when is the last time Congress passed a “true budget.?”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.
.
The paragraph wasn’t ignored. The fact that Congress had to pass the same appropriation again is proof that Trump failed to distribute the original appropriation as the law required.
Congress had to pass another law to make up for Trump’s failure.
I need a barf bag...
Lol. Commies. Get a grip.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.
.
Why don’t you want to hear from these witnesses or see these documents? Worried about what they have to say or something else?
The house proved they aren't relevant, otherwise they would have gone to court to secure them. Don't waste my time with irrelevant crap. Let them prove the case they voted to proceed with.
.
There are pictures of Schiff with Ed Buck too.
They had to pass it again because Trump stopped it from being spent the first time around.They had to pass it again because the government is running on temporary spending measures.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.
.
The paragraph wasn’t ignored. The fact that Congress had to pass the same appropriation again is proof that Trump failed to distribute the original appropriation as the law required.
Congress had to pass another law to make up for Trump’s failure.
Don’t know. Irrelevant anyway.Riddle me this...when is the last time Congress passed a “true budget?”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.
.
The paragraph wasn’t ignored. The fact that Congress had to pass the same appropriation again is proof that Trump failed to distribute the original appropriation as the law required.
Congress had to pass another law to make up for Trump’s failure.
