Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Care4all]

Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.

Keeping the whistle blower anonymous is the law, for the IG who the whistle blower goes to, to report their complaints....

the IG guidelines tells the IG that the WB must be kept anonymous, unless a court order deems otherwise.

Let me ask you..... do you think the law was written that the IG who receives and investigates the complaint and the only person who actually knows for certain, who any of the WB'ers truly are, is to keep the identity of WB anonymous for no reason?

I mean, if it is against the law for the IG, WHY IN THE WORLD would think it would be OK for congressmen to reveal their identity, or the president, or the president's admin, or the president's son to REVEAL their identity?

It is NOT okay for other gvt politicos to reveal the WB identity and demonize them, and put their lives in danger, and family in danger, and make their life miserable at work, even if they are not fired.

To me and logic used, that DEFEATS the entire purpose of the IG requirement by law, to keep them anonymous.... and defeats the purpose of making it easier for whistle blowers to come forward to the IG with the fraud, abuse, or corruption they know about... seriously.

Those congress critters and admin and the president should be censured and reprimanded for what they did and were trying to do in the press to out, demean, cause vengeance upon the WB.... imo.

 

[Mac-7]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

It was more abusing of power than what Trump did. But neither is an impeachable offense. The President is the Commander in Chief of our military. He is allowed to make these decisions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

The question should have been, "Why are the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"

The better question is why are the Democrats afraid to run against Trump in 2020?

They are running ahainbst Trump.

Why do you think an election means crooks don't get punished?

If that’s the case we should let the people decide in 2020. You have nothing to worry about as you said everyone sees this they way you do. Right?

 

[Mac-7]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They were impossible to track

which the justice dept already know because of the same failed attemp when bush was president

obama and holder were knowingly transferring untrackable guns to the mexican mafia

 

[RealDave]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

The question should have been, "Why were the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"

They wanted to call witness that had nothing to do with whsat Trump did.

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer - all had to do with Joe Biden's actions as VP. What Joe Biden did is not relevant to Trump's bribery.

They also wanted to call the whistleblower only to find out who they were.

 

[RealDave]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They were impossible to track

which the justice dept already know because of the same failed attemp when bush was president

obama and holder were knowingly transferring untrackable guns to the mexican mafia

Some had GPS devices implanted but they failed.

 

[RealDave]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

The question should have been, "Why are the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"

The better question is why are the Democrats afraid to run against Trump in 2020?

They are running ahainbst Trump.

Why do you think an election means crooks don't get punished?

If that’s the case we should let the people decide in 2020. You have nothing to worry about as you said everyone sees this they way you do. Right?

So, if I rape a woman & if enough people say it is OK< then it is not a crime?

 

[Mac-7]

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They were impossible to track

which the justice dept already know because of the same failed attemp when bush was president

obama and holder were knowingly transferring untrackable guns to the mexican mafia

Some had GPS devices implanted but they failed.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They were impossible to track

which the justice dept already know because of the same failed attemp when bush was president

obama and holder were knowingly transferring untrackable guns to the mexican mafia

Some had GPS devices implanted but they failed.

Yet that didnt stop holder from continuing the program

and it led to the death of a Border Patrol agent

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

The question should have been, "Why are the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"

The better question is why are the Democrats afraid to run against Trump in 2020?

They are running ahainbst Trump.

Why do you think an election means crooks don't get punished?

If that’s the case we should let the people decide in 2020. You have nothing to worry about as you said everyone sees this they way you do. Right?

So, if I rape a woman & if enough people say it is OK< then it is not a crime?

If you rape a woman then 99% of the people will say it’s not OK. If you brush up against a woman on the train and she presses charges that you assaulted her then you have a case. If we see a video of the incident and we see it was nothing as it was a full train and people will bump into one another, then she has no case but zealot Leftists would still believe you assaulted her.

 

[boedicca]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

The question should have been, "Why were the dems so afraid to have the GOP call their witnesses in the House proceedings?"

They wanted to call witness that had nothing to do with whsat Trump did.

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer - all had to do with Joe Biden's actions as VP. What Joe Biden did is not relevant to Trump's bribery.

They also wanted to call the whistleblower only to find out who they were.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Care4all]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

 

[Mac-7]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

 

[Faun]

You mean the record low unemployment that started under Pres. Obama.

Which jobs are these record wage growths growing under.

When did these record home sales start?

Did you want to take a crack at telling us all what economic policies of Barack Obama's it was that caused unemployment to go down?

The stimulus bill helped the economy go back to growing, creating jobs.

Wht did your fat ass orange buddy do? Besides borrow 1.5 trillion to pump up his house of cards economy.

The Stimulus spent nearly a trillion tax dollars and created so few jobs that you progressives had to use "jobs created or saved" to hide how few they DID create!

What did Trump do? He cut frivolous regulations. He let businesses know that they were no longer the enemy of the Federal Government.

The Stimulus lowered the une,ployment rate between 1/2% and 1 1/2% & shortened the lerngth of the recession.

So, you think by allowing more pollution, unsafe work places & food supply created all these supposed jobs?

Why aren't you taking about the 1.5 trillion he borrowed?

The Stimulus cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars. Unemployment went up after the Stimulus was employed. It didn't start to come down until the Democrats lost the House and could no longer implement their progressive agenda. Only THEN was it safe for private capital to come out of hiding and start investing again!

Lying con tool, unemployment started dropping a year before Republicans took control of the House.

Do you ever stop lying?

Ever???

 

[Faun]

The stimulus bill helped the economy go back to growing, creating jobs.

Wht did your fat ass orange buddy do? Besides borrow 1.5 trillion to pump up his house of cards economy.

The Stimulus spent nearly a trillion tax dollars and created so few jobs that you progressives had to use "jobs created or saved" to hide how few they DID create!

What did Trump do? He cut frivolous regulations. He let businesses know that they were no longer the enemy of the Federal Government.

The Stimulus lowered the une,ployment rate between 1/2% and 1 1/2% & shortened the lerngth of the recession.

So, you think by allowing more pollution, unsafe work places & food supply created all these supposed jobs?

Why aren't you taking about the 1.5 trillion he borrowed?

The Stimulus cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars. Unemployment went up after the Stimulus was employed. It didn't start to come down until the Democrats lost the House and could no longer implement their progressive agenda. Only THEN was it safe for private capital to come out of hiding and start investing again!

Unemployment was on the way up/. That is why we needed the stimulus you stupid shit.

Without it, unemployment could have surpassed 11% & the recession lasted a lot longer.

The CBO said the stimulus did was was intended.

The Obama Administration said that if the stimulus wasn't granted that unemployment would rise above 8% but if it were granted that unemployment would go to 6%. They got the stimulus money but utilized it so poorly that unemployment rose above 10%! Only a progressive would claim that the stimulus worked as intended!

The unemployment rate was already about 8% when the stimulus was passed.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Stimulus spent nearly a trillion tax dollars and created so few jobs that you progressives had to use "jobs created or saved" to hide how few they DID create!

What did Trump do? He cut frivolous regulations. He let businesses know that they were no longer the enemy of the Federal Government.

The Stimulus lowered the une,ployment rate between 1/2% and 1 1/2% & shortened the lerngth of the recession.

So, you think by allowing more pollution, unsafe work places & food supply created all these supposed jobs?

Why aren't you taking about the 1.5 trillion he borrowed?

The Stimulus cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars. Unemployment went up after the Stimulus was employed. It didn't start to come down until the Democrats lost the House and could no longer implement their progressive agenda. Only THEN was it safe for private capital to come out of hiding and start investing again!

Unemployment was on the way up/. That is why we needed the stimulus you stupid shit.

Without it, unemployment could have surpassed 11% & the recession lasted a lot longer.

The CBO said the stimulus did was was intended.

The Obama Administration said that if the stimulus wasn't granted that unemployment would rise above 8% but if it were granted that unemployment would go to 6%. They got the stimulus money but utilized it so poorly that unemployment rose above 10%! Only a progressive would claim that the stimulus worked as intended!

The unemployment rate was already about 8% when the stimulus was passed.

Obama's economic advisors promised that if given the stimulus that rate would drop to 6%...instead it rose to over 10%.

 

[Care4all]

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

 

[Oldstyle]

i.) Everything the Dems complain about Trump doing, every act, is some act which the same Dems stayed silent about when they observed Obama Admin doing the same things from 2012-'16.

like what? When did Obama use his presidency and power to solicit a foreign president to make an announcement on CNN to the whole world, that the foreign gvt was opening an investigation in to the president's upcoming election political rival?

ii.) Trump stayed away from the House's impeachment sham, exactly because they refused to let him call his own witnesses and to invalidate the whistleblower. But now MitchMc & the Senate Repubs are dead wrong, for repeating what the Dems just did? go figure

"]The House did not have to refuse to let Trump question his whistleblowing-accuser's validity ---to legally guard any President from his critics concocting fictitious impeachable acts.

the president's goal was to out the whistleblower so he and his attack dogs could go after him in a personal way...

it's important to make WB's feel at ease with reporting all kinds of wrong doings of our gvt. Being anonymous, as with any anonymous tip line, is important. If not for any one single tip or complaint, but for the overall program that ends up saving us billions in fraud and corruption within the gvt... so if we can, we promise anonymity.

In this case, the whistle blower IS NOT NEEDED and CAN NOT exonerate the president, can not give the president any kind of a defense because there are 17 other sworn 1st and 2nd hand witnesses that showed up, who substantiated what was in the complaint,

along with the IG, who in his investigation FOUND the WB complaint credible and urgent. the IG said he spoke directly with FIRST HAND witnesses that confirmed the complaint.

if the IG found that the WB complaint had no legs, it would not have been pegged by the IG as credible and urgent... or gone forward. Not all or not even near all WB complaints are found credible... many DIE an early death after the IG investigates them.

So, this bulloney on not letting the president call witnesses is nothing but Trump obfuscating.... it was not a defense at all.

and not meant to be a defense.... just a smear and vengeance he could bring towards the WB and the whole WB program that is very beneficial to the USA...

ONLY CROOKS AND THE CORRUPT, hate it and work to destroy it.

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They allowed sales that they knew were going to cross the border and end up in the hands of narco terrorists and that they KNEW they couldn't track! The Bush Administration attempted to track gun running across the board with the full cooperation of the Mexican Government but stopped the program when they realized that they couldn't track those weapons. The Obama Administration didn't inform the Mexican Government about what they were doing with Fast & Furious. Why? Because they never intended to track the weapons!

 

[Polishprince]

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

You have it backwards here. Its up to the Liberals to PROVE it was self-dealing. Not for the President to prove it wasn't. I see libs hypothesizing that President Trump did this for political benefit, but where is the smoking gun? Where is the letter from President Trump explaining how they were going to take Sleepy Joe out like this?

There is none. And that's the point.

In actuality, you have President Trump tweeting how much he actually would love to face a slow witted dullard like Biden. It would seem there is no motivation for the supposed motive.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

Gun running is a crime

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care? What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?