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

[OldLady]

the dems didnt allow republicans to call forth witnesses during their inquiry ....

The people the Republicans wanted to call had no bearing on Trump's behavior. It has been explained to you over and over. Both Bidens were already investigated and found NOT GUILTY of what the Repubs are accusing them of. Crowdstrike is a bad dream cooked up by the bots and having no stake in reality. Calling the whistleblower and Schumer to browbeat them for bringing forth a complaint against the Orange Lord is nothing but petty revenge.

So who else did they want to call? Sondland was theirs. I heard him. Maybe they should have let him stay home. lol

 

[Meister]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

 

[RealDave]

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.

 

[Oldstyle]

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...

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

 

[Meister]

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.

No he didn't, quit your lying

 

[OldLady]

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

 

[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...

why-is-the-gop-senate-so-afraid-to-call-witnesses.


What a FAIL!

The HOUSE wouldn't 'allow' GOP witnesses to 'testify' in their close door interrogations.

The HOUSE is AFRAID, should they finally turn over impeachment papers to the Senate, of ANY and ALL witnesses called to testify.

Bullshit.

 

[RealDave]

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

Elections have consequences

You elected a fucking crook & we are supposed to allow him to do crooked shit?

Who knew.

 

[Meister]

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

Quid pro quo is not a crime. PERIOD

 

[Oldstyle]

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

Trump withheld federal funding in order to get a foreign leader to announce an investyigation into his politrical rival.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

The Republicans gather & all vote against it so they can scream partisan.

Trump withheld Federal funding because he was concerned about rampant corruption in the Ukraine. He asked the President of the Ukraine to look into that issue. Was looking into Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine included in that request? Yes, it was and for good reason. What took place between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma and the government of the Ukraine smells to high heaven. At BEST it's highly inappropriate! At worst it's outright influence peddling. That isn't a "partisan" view...it's simply seeing what's THERE!

 

[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...

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

Oh fuck off. There has been evidence presented. It all points to Trump's guilt.

Let the Senate base their decision on that.

If Trump has something to add, then he should do it. He can testify under oath.

 

[Meister]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

Oh fuck off. There has been evidence presented. It all points to Trump's guilt.

Let the Senate base their decision on that.

If Trump has something to add, then he should do it. He can testify under oath.

 

[Jitss617]

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

In all honesty, I believe the courts would have sided with Trump. There is no there, there. I believe that is exactly why the democrats
didn't want to use the courts like in the impeachment of Clinton. With Clinton there was an actual law broken.
Think this through without being so partisan.

In the case of the subpoenas, is it the court's job to establish the truth of the case, or just to determine if the President has the authority to ignore Congress's right to investigate the Executive?

We are starting to uncover why women were never allowed to vote when you don’t get what you want you dem women turn into Nazis, all norms are thrown out the window until you get what you want.. it doesn’t work that way

 

[Oldstyle]

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

Then your tribe should have used the courts to have those witnesses testify instead of racing through the impeachment process.
That's what the courts are there for. sheesh

Perhaps the better thing, the more decent thing, would have been for the President to cooperate with the subpoenas from the Congress, as the Constitution sets forth.
If you are so sure the courts would force the President's men to testify, why are we going through this charade? He is obviously wrong and he knows it.

Elections have consequences

You elected a fucking crook & we are supposed to allow him to do crooked shit?

Who knew.

Yes, Trump was elected by the people of the United States. You don't get to negate that election because you don't like that it happened. You get to run someone against him in the next election. What you on the left are doing right now is not what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned happening.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

Oh fuck off. There has been evidence presented. It all points to Trump's guilt.

Let the Senate base their decision on that.

If Trump has something to add, then he should do it. He can testify under oath.

The Senate WILL base their decision on that and they will vote not to impeach. Why? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE THAT ADAM SCHIFF "PRESENTED" WAS PATHETICALLY BAD!!!

 

[Weatherman2020]

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...

This thread didn’t age well.

Biden says he would not comply with a Senate subpoena in Trump's impeachment trial

 

[OldLady]

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...

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

As far as I'm concerned, there has been plenty of evidence presented and I agree that he should be impeached. And removed. However, a lot of lawyers who know about standards in court do not believe it is enough.

When you hold a gun to a man's chest and say "This is not a stickup, just give me all your money," it is still a stickup. Zelensky has several million good reasons to say whatever Trump wants him to say.

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's the litmus test for the impeachment "evidence"! If it had any credibility whatsoever then Republicans like Susan Collins would be voting against Trump. She's not. Why? Because this whole thing is a total farce. It's such a farce that you haven't managed to pick off even a single Republican...even the ones that cross the aisle all the time on votes like Collins!

 

[Jitss617]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

As far as I'm concerned, there has been plenty of evidence presented and I agree that he should be impeached. And removed. However, a lot of lawyers who know about standards in court do not believe it is enough.

When you hold a gun to a man's chest and say "This is not a stickup, just give me all your money," it is still a stickup. Zelensky has several million good reasons to say whatever Trump wants him to say.

TDS is real

 

[Meister]

So you want the accused to provide evidence they are not guilty? Lol hahaha you do have a low IQ

So, in a murder trial;, you would call no witnesses that show your client is innocent?

So far most witnesses have agreed that Trump quid pro quo.

If the Republicans call no one, their vote is 100% political & pisses on the duty as set forth by the US Constitution.

What crime has been committed?
Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
If they wanted witnesses they should have used the courts, but, they were in a hurry to a train wreck....and it did wreck for them.
Perhaps, in their next impeachment hoax with this president they will slow down.

Witnesses who say, I presumed", "I assumed" , I heard ______ say"......that is not evidence in a court of law.
Trump is stopping those who heard straight from the horses mouth from testifying. It is as simple as that and it doesn't take a genius to understand why he is doing it.

So you admit that there hasn't been evidence of any crime presented so far, Old Lady but you're convinced that suspending Executive Privilege for the Trump Administration will somehow unearth evidence that will? What do you base that on...I mean other than your obvious dislike for Trump?

As for getting the story straight from the horse's mouth? Trump released the transcript of the call. Can't get anymore direct than that. The President of the Ukraine has repeatedly denied there was any Quid Pro Quo in play. Can't get anymore first person than that. So what are YOU basing your accusations on? The parade of people Adam Schiff brought in who DIDN'T have first person knowledge of what took place? The panel of "academics" who's dislike of Trump seemed to be their only contribution to the proceedings?

As far as I'm concerned, there has been plenty of evidence presented and I agree that he should be impeached. And removed. However, a lot of lawyers who know about standards in court do not believe it is enough.

When you hold a gun to a man's chest and say "This is not a stickup, just give me all your money," it is still a stickup. Zelensky has several million good reasons to say whatever Trump wants him to say.

Evidence of what? Because, quid pro quo is not a crime and that's why the democrats didn't want to use the courts. You are being vague

Then you bring up a gun being placed on a man's chest....which IS a crime.