Why Aren't the Republicans Calling Witnesses to Defend Trump?

[Syriusly]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

The witness today defended Trump and was clear she had no knowledge of any criminality.

Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

Stewart: Do you any have information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?

Yovanovitch: No.

I don't think that Yovanovitch either defended or attacked Trump.

Why don't you think that the GOP want Pompeo or Mulvaney to testify?

 

[Nostra]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

Trump has to prove he's not guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?

witnesses provide exculpatory evidence in our courts on a daily basis - its called DEFENSE.

Schifferbrain's STAR WITNESSES have provide all the exculpatory evidence needed.

 

[Mike473]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

The witness today defended Trump and was clear she had no knowledge of any criminality.

Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

Stewart: Do you any have information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?

Yovanovitch: No.

I don't think that Yovanovitch either defended or attacked Trump.

Why don't you think that the GOP want Pompeo or Mulvaney to testify?

Let's clear this one up. What did Yovanovitch say when asked if she knew of any criminal activity that Trump was involved in?

 

[Nostra]

So.....I just got ...dismayed by the usual dreck in a thread here at USMB.....and decided to look at the statistics
out of 110 responses
not responsive 58
Just insults 13
Slightly responsive 19
responseive 20
Just threats 1

So 58 out of 110- roughly 50% had nothing to do with the question in my thread.
13- about 10% were nothing but an insult
19 were slightly responsive- on topic somewhat but just somewhat
20 were actual responses.
1 was just a threat

Some like Brip- who can't post without insulting anyone- I gave credit for being somewhat responsive and didn't include as just insults.
Others like Bear- well Bear just is trolling. Almost all- maybe all- of his posts are not responsive.

And I think this is on par with USMB. Mostly just people talking shit, and you are lucky if there are even 10-20% of the posts who have anything to do with the thread.

I counted about 75 posts spanking your ass.

 

[bripat9643]

first hand knowledge.

the idiots learned a new phrase.

first hand knowledge witnesses wont be credible enough for those pukes when they show up and shit on Goldilocks.

not in 100 years -

"Hearsay" is obviously a term your boneheads don't understand.

 

[bripat9643]

So.....I just got ...dismayed by the usual dreck in a thread here at USMB.....and decided to look at the statistics
out of 110 responses
not responsive 58
Just insults 13
Slightly responsive 19
responseive 20
Just threats 1

So 58 out of 110- roughly 50% had nothing to do with the question in my thread.
13- about 10% were nothing but an insult
19 were slightly responsive- on topic somewhat but just somewhat
20 were actual responses.
1 was just a threat

Some like Brip- who can't post without insulting anyone- I gave credit for being somewhat responsive and didn't include as just insults.
Others like Bear- well Bear just is trolling. Almost all- maybe all- of his posts are not responsive.

And I think this is on par with USMB. Mostly just people talking shit, and you are lucky if there are even 10-20% of the posts who have anything to do with the thread.

You were told dozens of times, shit for brains. I can't help it if you don't like the answers.

 

[bripat9643]

I listed the Trumpbot Republicans who ignored the subpoena requiring them to testify.

they refuse to testify -

so STFU about witnesses.

Why would they testify at this circus? That would only lend it an undeserved credibility.

Trumpbots are demanding witnesses thats why

ya f'n idiot

Not the witnesses Schiff wants, shit for brains.

bb brain yammers ...... NOT THOSE WITNESSES - DIFFERENT WITNESSES !!!!!!!!

That's right, moron. Do you think the prosecution in a criminal trial gets to choose the witnesses for the defense? No . . . No . . . it can't be true. You actually do believe that. At least you don't see the problem with it. That's the proof that you're a brain damaged retard.

 

[bripat9643]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

Trump has to prove he's not guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?

witnesses provide exculpatory evidence in our courts on a daily basis - its called DEFENSE.

Those witnesses are chosen by the defense, not the prosecution, you brainless douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

The witness today defended Trump and was clear she had no knowledge of any criminality.

Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

Stewart: Do you any have information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?

Yovanovitch: No.

I don't think that Yovanovitch either defended or attacked Trump.

Why don't you think that the GOP want Pompeo or Mulvaney to testify?

Why don't you think Schiff-for-Brains wants the whistleblower to testify?

 

[Nostra]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

The witness today defended Trump and was clear she had no knowledge of any criminality.

Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

Stewart: Do you any have information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?

Yovanovitch: No.

I don't think that Yovanovitch either defended or attacked Trump.

Why don't you think that the GOP want Pompeo or Mulvaney to testify?

Why don't you think Schiff-for-Brains wants the whistleblower to testify?

He did..............before he didn't........

 

[ElmerMudd]

Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

I suppose they don't want to expose them to the risk of perjury charges...

If you tell the truth there can be no perjury. All of the current individuals testifying are just as susceptible to perjury as anyone. They are not concerned because they tell the truth.

 

[ElmerMudd]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

Trump has to prove he's not guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?

Trump, himself, has said he wants to allow the Republicans to defend him. Trump wants whistleblower to testify why not Mulvaney, Pompeo etc.

 

[Mike473]

Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

I suppose they don't want to expose them to the risk of perjury charges...

If you tell the truth there can be no perjury. All of the current individuals testifying are just as susceptible to perjury as anyone. They are not concerned because they tell the truth.

The current individuals did tell the truth. They are aware of no criminality. Why go any further than that? If the Dems have a witness claiming criminal behavior, let's see it.

 

[RandomPoster]

first hand knowledge.

the idiots learned a new phrase.

first hand knowledge witnesses wont be credible enough for those pukes when they show up and shit on Goldilocks.

not in 100 years -

Again, Trump has no burden of proof here. The subversive mutineers trying to overturn the election have to prove he is guilty.

First it was Russian collusion, then his tax returns, then Ukrainian "quid pro quo", then bribery, then back to his tax returns, and on and on and on.

 

[DGS49]

All the relevant facts are known. No more witnesses are necessary.

And of course, there is no there there. No crime. No bribery, fraud, extortion, QPQ...any of it. It's all bullshit.

No, wait! Trump fired an ambassador he didn't like. The NERVE!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

Trump has to prove he's not guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?

Trump, himself, has said he wants to allow the Republicans to defend him. Trump wants whistleblower to testify why not Mulvaney, Pompeo etc.

Why can't Republicans call the witnesses they want? That's how due process works, you fucking dumbass.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

I suppose they don't want to expose them to the risk of perjury charges...

If you tell the truth there can be no perjury. All of the current individuals testifying are just as susceptible to perjury as anyone. They are not concerned because they tell the truth.

The current individuals did tell the truth. They are aware of no criminality. Why go any further than that? If the Dems have a witness claiming criminal behavior, let's see it.

There is definitely potential criminality on Trump's part, intimidation of a witness, abuse of power to name two. But impeachment does not require any criminality. I would like to quote Lindsay Graham's interpretation of impeachment.
"Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html

 

[Mike473]

Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

I suppose they don't want to expose them to the risk of perjury charges...

If you tell the truth there can be no perjury. All of the current individuals testifying are just as susceptible to perjury as anyone. They are not concerned because they tell the truth.

The current individuals did tell the truth. They are aware of no criminality. Why go any further than that? If the Dems have a witness claiming criminal behavior, let's see it.

There is definitely potential criminality on Trump's part, intimidation of a witness, abuse of power to name two. But impeachment does not require any criminality. I would like to quote Lindsay Graham's interpretation of impeachment.
"Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html

Then the Dems should put some witnesses under oath that will make a case for impeachment and tell us what the impeachable action or criminal action is in this case. None so far have done so.

 

[Syriusly]

So far all Republicans have done is try to smear the witnesses before the House. The witnesses the Republicans want to call have no knowledge of Trump's activities in Ukraine.

Why don't the Republicans call Pompeo?

Why don't the Republicans call Giuliani?

Why don't the Republicans call Pence?

Why don't the Republicans call Mulvaney?

These are all people with first hand knowledge of what happened- if there was no bribery attempt- they could testify as to their first hand knowledge that there was no bribery attempt.

If the President wasn't demanding an investigation into Biden's in exchange for arms or for a visit in the White House- these people could make that absolutely clear- easily.
'
Why don't Republicans want to mount a defense with witnesses who can refute those who say there was a quid pro quo for Trump's personal benefit?

Trump has to prove he's not guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution?

Trump, himself, has said he wants to allow the Republicans to defend him. Trump wants whistleblower to testify why not Mulvaney, Pompeo etc.

Why can't Republicans call the witnesses they want? That's how due process works, you fucking dumbass.

No that is not how the process works.

Why don't the Republicans want Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify?

 

[Syriusly]

All the relevant facts are known. No more witnesses are necessary.

And of course, there is no there there. No crime. No bribery, fraud, extortion, QPQ...any of it. It's all bullshit.

No, wait! Trump fired an ambassador he didn't like. The NERVE!!!!!

You certainly seem determined that Americans don't hear the remainder of the witnesses......

Meanwhile- back on topic- why in their witness list do you think the
Republicans are not calling Giuliani?