What Witnesses Should Be Called At Senate Trial?

[Biff_Poindexter]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

 

[Polishprince]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

Ukraine's President, the Honorable Volodymyr O. Zelensky says he was under no pressure whatsoever by President Trump to launch an investigation.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would show the senators what a piece of shit the gentleman is, and how much common sense it was to investigate him. It had nothing to do with alleged "political revenge", just ordinary sense. If Sleepy Joe were to be elected, there would be no chance of Hunter getting justice here, Ukraine would be a different story.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

lol No, there is a real investigation going on into the in the DoJ into corrupt actions connected to the 2016 election and it is being run by John Dunham, and Biden's confession that in December 2015 he threatened the president of Ukraine with the loss of US aid at a time when it was badly needed if Ukraine didn't immediately fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma is of interest in this investigation. President Trump asked President Zelensky to cooperate with that investigation. President Zelensky has said repeatedly that he never felt he was being pressured.

If there was no legitimate basis for the investigation, and the President only called for the investigation to serve his own political purposes, as the Democrats have produced this impeachment circus only to serve their own political purposes, then he abused his powers, just as Pelosi, Schumer, et. al. are abusing their powers now, but if there were a legitimate suspicion that the Obama administration sent Biden to Ukraine in December 2015, on the eve of the 2016 election season, to strong arm Poroshenko, the then President of Ukraine, into firing Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma, to try to keep the Hunter Biden scandal out of the 2016 election, then there is absolutely no basis for the claim Trump abused his power.

That's why Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's sworn testimony along with the others I previously listed must testify under oath because only their sworn testimony can prove or disprove whether there was a legitimate basis for the investigation into the Bidens' actions in Ukraine on the eve of the 2016 election season.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

Ukraine's President, the Honorable Volodymyr O. Zelensky says he was under no pressure whatsoever by President Trump to launch an investigation.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would show the senators what a piece of shit the gentleman is, and how much common sense it was to investigate him. It had nothing to do with alleged "political revenge", just ordinary sense. If Sleepy Joe were to be elected, there would be no chance of Hunter getting justice here, Ukraine would be a different story.

We already know Trump is a piece if shit....your point??

Here is a bet.....how about we put both pieces of shit on the stand and who do you think would perjur themselves the most??

I'll wait while you keep finding something else to deflect with

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

lol No, there is a real investigation going on into the in the DoJ into corrupt actions connected to the 2016 election and it is being run by John Dunham, and Biden's confession that in December 2015 he threatened the president of Ukraine with the loss of US aid at a time when it was badly needed if Ukraine didn't immediately fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma is of interest in this investigation. President Trump asked President Zelensky to cooperate with that investigation. President Zelensky has said repeatedly that he never felt he was being pressured.

If there was no legitimate basis for the investigation, and the President only called for the investigation to serve his own political purposes, as the Democrats have produced this impeachment circus only to serve their own political purposes, then he abused his powers, just as Pelosi, Schumer, et. al. are abusing their powers now, but if there were a legitimate suspicion that the Obama administration sent Biden to Ukraine in December 2015, on the eve of the 2016 election season, to strong arm Poroshenko, the then President of Ukraine, into firing Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma, to try to keep the Hunter Biden scandal out of the 2016 election, then there is absolutely no basis for the claim Trump abused his power.

That's why Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's sworn testimony along with the others I previously listed must testify under oath because only their sworn testimony can prove or disprove whether there was a legitimate basis for the investigation into the Bidens' actions in Ukraine on the eve of the 2016 election season.

Has that investigation resulted in anyone being indicted yet?

Like maybe Hunter's personal lawyer or maybe Joe Biden's campaign manager?? Any of that happen yet??


And when Durham comes back with no indictments against anyone, would that prove you wrong? Nope...because with you trumpers, its feelings.....as long as you feel someone is guilty, that is what matters...

Let me know where in the constitution does it say feelings reach the burden of proof...

 

[toomuchtime_]

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

Ukraine's President, the Honorable Volodymyr O. Zelensky says he was under no pressure whatsoever by President Trump to launch an investigation.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would show the senators what a piece of shit the gentleman is, and how much common sense it was to investigate him. It had nothing to do with alleged "political revenge", just ordinary sense. If Sleepy Joe were to be elected, there would be no chance of Hunter getting justice here, Ukraine would be a different story.

We already know Trump is a piece if shit....your point??

Here is a bet.....how about we put both pieces of shit on the stand and who do you think would perjur themselves the most??

I'll wait while you keep finding something else to deflect with

How sad, we started talking about legal issues and now you can only talk about shit.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

Ukraine's President, the Honorable Volodymyr O. Zelensky says he was under no pressure whatsoever by President Trump to launch an investigation.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would show the senators what a piece of shit the gentleman is, and how much common sense it was to investigate him. It had nothing to do with alleged "political revenge", just ordinary sense. If Sleepy Joe were to be elected, there would be no chance of Hunter getting justice here, Ukraine would be a different story.

We already know Trump is a piece if shit....your point??

Here is a bet.....how about we put both pieces of shit on the stand and who do you think would perjur themselves the most??

I'll wait while you keep finding something else to deflect with

How sad, we started talking about legal issues and now you can only talk about shit.

I will say this again....

Has the Durham investigation produced any indictments yet??

Trump racked up over 80 indictments in his first year in office...you telling me Durham aint came up with one yet??

Hell, Giuliani's clients were indicted in a matter of days.....

 

[toomuchtime_]

As you say, the hearings in the House were a sham and the Democrats have behaved irresponsibly and the articles of impeachment are nonsense, unworthy of any further debate, so the issue should quickly be dismissed by the Senate and the country can recover from this distraction and get on to the real business of the nation. No witnesses, no debate, just a quick vote.

So how much of a difference would it have made if Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. had testified under oath.

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

lol No, there is a real investigation going on into the in the DoJ into corrupt actions connected to the 2016 election and it is being run by John Dunham, and Biden's confession that in December 2015 he threatened the president of Ukraine with the loss of US aid at a time when it was badly needed if Ukraine didn't immediately fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma is of interest in this investigation. President Trump asked President Zelensky to cooperate with that investigation. President Zelensky has said repeatedly that he never felt he was being pressured.

If there was no legitimate basis for the investigation, and the President only called for the investigation to serve his own political purposes, as the Democrats have produced this impeachment circus only to serve their own political purposes, then he abused his powers, just as Pelosi, Schumer, et. al. are abusing their powers now, but if there were a legitimate suspicion that the Obama administration sent Biden to Ukraine in December 2015, on the eve of the 2016 election season, to strong arm Poroshenko, the then President of Ukraine, into firing Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma, to try to keep the Hunter Biden scandal out of the 2016 election, then there is absolutely no basis for the claim Trump abused his power.

That's why Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's sworn testimony along with the others I previously listed must testify under oath because only their sworn testimony can prove or disprove whether there was a legitimate basis for the investigation into the Bidens' actions in Ukraine on the eve of the 2016 election season.

Has that investigation resulted in anyone being indicted yet?

Like maybe Hunter's personal lawyer or maybe Joe Biden's campaign manager?? Any of that happen yet??


And when Durham comes back with no indictments against anyone, would that prove you wrong? Nope...because with you trumpers, its feelings.....as long as you feel someone is guilty, that is what matters...

Let me know where in the constitution does it say feelings reach the burden of proof...

It only began after the end of Mueller's investigation, but it was changed to a criminal investigation a few weeks ago, and Dunham wants to interview Hunter Biden. We will both just have to wait and see what comes out of it over the next several months leading up to the election.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Testified about what? This is a trial, not an investigation. The purpose is to determine if the articles of impeachment are sufficient grounds to remove the President from office. So what are the charges, that the President abused his power by investigating possible corruption by the Obama administration concerning a cover up of the Hunter Bide/Joe Biden/ Burisma scandal, and that the President obstructed the House investigation by asserting executive privilege.

The obstruction charge is just a statement of petulance by the Democrats, so the only real charge is the claim the President abused his power by trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden solely to benefit his own reelection campaign. The very nature of the charge about digging up dirt on Biden suggests the Democrats believe there was dirt to be dug up about Biden's dealings in Ukraine. If there was dirt to be dug up that raises the question, was the President conducting a legitimate investigation into possible corrupt dealings by Biden and the Obama administration to cover up a political scandal on the eve of the 2016 election season, in which case there would have been no abuse of power, or was there no legitimate basis for such an investigation, in which case, there might have been an abuse of power? To make this determination, the witnesses to be called should be, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, other officials in the Obama administration who were involved in dealing with the Hunter Biden/Burisma scandal, Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine at the time who Biden threatened and strong armed in firing the prosecutor, Shokin, and Shokin, of course. Testimony under oath by these people should establish if there were legitimate grounds for pursuing an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine or not. The witnesses Schumer wants to call would have nothing to add to the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds to pursue an investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine.

Since Schumer will oppose any witness who can shed light on the issue of whether there were legitimate grounds for pursuing the investigation of Biden's dealings in Ukraine and therefore whether or not Trump abused his power, it is in the best interests of the country, to quickly dispose of this matter and get back to doing the real business of the country.

Trump is being impeached for abusing his office to try to shake down Ukraine into announcing an investigation...not launching a real investigation, just announcing one....

Now, who has the ability to exonerate Trump more -- the people he claims were first hand witnesses to the calls or Hunter Biden??

Exactly how would Hunter Biden prove Trump didn't shake down Ukraine? and why isn't Mitch McConnell calling him as a witness??

Mitch McConnell is the one running the show -- but I understand how cuckold trumpers like yourself still feel you have no control

Ukraine's President, the Honorable Volodymyr O. Zelensky says he was under no pressure whatsoever by President Trump to launch an investigation.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would show the senators what a piece of shit the gentleman is, and how much common sense it was to investigate him. It had nothing to do with alleged "political revenge", just ordinary sense. If Sleepy Joe were to be elected, there would be no chance of Hunter getting justice here, Ukraine would be a different story.

We already know Trump is a piece if shit....your point??

Here is a bet.....how about we put both pieces of shit on the stand and who do you think would perjur themselves the most??

I'll wait while you keep finding something else to deflect with

How sad, we started talking about legal issues and now you can only talk about shit.

I will say this again....

Has the Durham investigation produced any indictments yet??

Trump racked up over 80 indictments in his first year in office...you telling me Durham aint came up with one yet??

Hell, Giuliani's clients were indicted in a matter of days.....

Relax, the Pelosi Schumer production of Impeachment Theater is over, the Democrats are taking their final bows and it's time for the Congress to get back to the serious business of government. The President will remain in office and very likely win a second term, and the Democrats will try for the next few months to win back some credibility with voters by trying to work constructively with the WH. It's over. Find a new hobby.

 

[RealDave]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

If President Trump wants to call these witnesses, I'm sure he will. Depends on what the libs accuse them of during the trial. Although the idea of calling the Defense Counsel, Mr. Giuliani is absurd.

But the Liberals are just on a fishing expedition here, and any trial isn't an investigation at all. They seem to want to make this a political point, as they say the case is already proved. If the libs have the case, they should make it with what they have already and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they say is proof enough.

He cant have people giving evidence. It will screw up the cover up.

I think President Trump should call Rush Limbaugh and Mark R. Levin as witnesses. After all, Schiff's witnesses didn't see anything and just gave their opinions, and these gentleman didn't see anything either but have different opinions.

Trump should call the Bidens as well. But we all know he wont. He is above the law apparently.

President Trump will call the Bidens if he thinks it will help his case.

And it might, it would at least keep sleepy , creeping Joe, the serial groper, off the campaign trail for a while.

A trumpette calling someone a groper.

 

[Polishprince]

If President Trump wants to call these witnesses, I'm sure he will. Depends on what the libs accuse them of during the trial. Although the idea of calling the Defense Counsel, Mr. Giuliani is absurd.

But the Liberals are just on a fishing expedition here, and any trial isn't an investigation at all. They seem to want to make this a political point, as they say the case is already proved. If the libs have the case, they should make it with what they have already and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they say is proof enough.

He cant have people giving evidence. It will screw up the cover up.

I think President Trump should call Rush Limbaugh and Mark R. Levin as witnesses. After all, Schiff's witnesses didn't see anything and just gave their opinions, and these gentleman didn't see anything either but have different opinions.

Trump should call the Bidens as well. But we all know he wont. He is above the law apparently.

President Trump will call the Bidens if he thinks it will help his case.

And it might, it would at least keep sleepy , creeping Joe, the serial groper, off the campaign trail for a while.

A trumpette calling someone a groper.

Biden's gropery is a matter of public record. There are pictures of it, it almost rivaled that of Al Franken who got run out of Congress by the libs for similar misbehavior.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

None. The time for calling witnesses is over.

 

[Polishprince]

None. The time for calling witnesses is over.

Exactly.

The job of the Senate isn't to investigate the alleged High Crimes, but to listen to the impeachment charges and the case which is made by the House managers.

if there are other witnesses they needed to hear from in order to make their case, Nervous Nancy should just delay the vote until the new evidence can be accumulated.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

None. The time for calling witnesses is over.

Exactly.

The job of the Senate isn't to investigate the alleged High Crimes, but to listen to the impeachment charges and the case which is made by the House managers.

if there are other witnesses they needed to hear from in order to make their case, Nervous Nancy should just delay the vote until the new evidence can be accumulated.

Witnesses were called in the Senate trial for Clinton's impeachment -- and nobody complained....why??

Because witnesses are often called to testify at trials.....it's sorta how trials work...

Why are you sycophants so willing to make yourselves look stupid all of the time??

 

[Polishprince]

None. The time for calling witnesses is over.

Exactly.

The job of the Senate isn't to investigate the alleged High Crimes, but to listen to the impeachment charges and the case which is made by the House managers.

if there are other witnesses they needed to hear from in order to make their case, Nervous Nancy should just delay the vote until the new evidence can be accumulated.

Witnesses were called in the Senate trial for Clinton's impeachment -- and nobody complained....why??

Because witnesses are often called to testify at trials.....it's sorta how trials work...

Why are you sycophants so willing to make yourselves look stupid all of the time??

The Clinton witnesses were pre-interviewed and they knew what they had witnessed. The essence of what they had to say was known.

In this case, no one even known in Mr. Mulvaney or Mr. Bolton were there or even heard the supposedly felonious phone call. And Mr. Giuliani is the President's counsel, the idea of calling the defense counsel to the stand is absurd. Maybe Marcia Clark should have called Johnnie Cochran to the stand?

Lastly, these witnesses are claiming executive privilege. That privilege hasn't been challenged in court.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

None. The time for calling witnesses is over.

Exactly.

The job of the Senate isn't to investigate the alleged High Crimes, but to listen to the impeachment charges and the case which is made by the House managers.

if there are other witnesses they needed to hear from in order to make their case, Nervous Nancy should just delay the vote until the new evidence can be accumulated.

Democrats are just going to repeat stupid over and over.

 

[MAGAman]

If all fact witnesses to Trump wrongdoing and fact witnesses to evidence of Trump wrongdoing are called that would be zero witnesses .

You have to have a wrongdoing to have a witness to wrongdoing.

 

[theHawk]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

Those charging the President need to call witnesses to prove their case. The President doesn’t need to call anyone.

 

[MAGAman]

Those charging the President need to call witnesses to prove their case. The President doesn’t need to call anyone.

Nadler and Shifft proved they have no witness.

 

[jameny5]

Senate GOP eyes punting decision on impeachment trial witnesses

Since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, doesn't that mean this phase of the impeachment process is no longer a sham?? I mean, when the impeachment process was in the house, it was a sham and that is why Trump didn't allow any of his witnesses to come testify on the record and clear him -- but this is the Senate now, shouldn't we be hearing from these witnesses with all of this exonerating evidence they have??

"Senate Republicans are considering punting a decision about what, if any, witnesses to allow during an impeachment trial until after the proceeding starts. The discussions would buy more time for negotiations, both among senators and with the White House, about what is emerging as one of the most contentious points of the looming Senate proceeding."

I don't get it -- why would they be reluctant to call any witnesses to TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? Especially if these witnesses we are told, will clearly prove Trump's innocence and implicate Obama, the Deep State, Ukraine and possibly two members of the boy band Hanson....Democrats are eager to hear from Mick Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and others -- aren't these the people who can clear Trump??

Who do you think Trump should send to the Senate to testify that has the evidence to clear Trump and finally put people like Obama and Christopher Wray in prison??

If President Trump wants to call these witnesses, I'm sure he will. Depends on what the libs accuse them of during the trial. Although the idea of calling the Defense Counsel, Mr. Giuliani is absurd.

But the Liberals are just on a fishing expedition here, and any trial isn't an investigation at all. They seem to want to make this a political point, as they say the case is already proved. If the libs have the case, they should make it with what they have already and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they say is proof enough.

He cant have people giving evidence. It will screw up the cover up.

I think President Trump should call Rush Limbaugh and Mark R. Levin as witnesses. After all, Schiff's witnesses didn't see anything and just gave their opinions, and these gentleman didn't see anything either but have different opinions.

Yes - Call Roly Poly Limbaugh to testify. Have some perc's and oxy's on the side in case he blows his top. He is an entertaining guy like Trumpy! Send him an invite [emoji16] or an email.