https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15...ent-099407

Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are arguing that Republicans are in danger of giving Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the witnesses he wants by even considering a debate over new testimony.

How can a grown adult American male be a leftist in the USA? Unless you make money from that.
How is it possible to be a total p u ss y?

I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

Jeez are ******* blind.

I would prefer they address only the 2 articles of impeachment as passed and presented by the House.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.
I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?
He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

Investigating criminal activity is not inviting election interference. And withholding aid (which didn't happen) or delaying it (which did) are not uncommon occurrences.

I think the Senate should use the same Soviet political show court rules Shiff for Brains made up on the fly.

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

You're talking about Biden, right? Please say you are so I can stop thinking that you are a complete and utter moron.

(01-16-2020 10:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I think the Senate should use the same Soviet political show court rules Shiff for Brains made up on the fly.

I agree. Screw taking the high road, get down and dirty in the trenches with these commie bastards.

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

My thoughts exactly. The Democrat evidence has largely dominated the last 3 months as they called who they wanted and blocked the witness's they thought might harm their case. On the other hand, witness's that show how dirty Crazy Joe is or how Shifty Schiff manipulated the this entire impeachment "crisis" would be completely new information for most of the general public that only sees CNN/lame stream media DNC propaganda.

Frankly, given all exculpatory witness's were blocked from testifying in the House proceedings--there is a very reasonable argument to be made for ONLY the presidents defense team being allowed to call witness's in the Senate. Why is that fair you ask? Its fair because the House vote to impeach literally means they have already obtained all the witness testimony needed to prove their case during in the House proceedings.--while up to now---the president has had NO opportunity to call exculpatory witness's that might rebut or give proper context as to why prior testimony in the House was at times misleading/inaccurate.

(01-16-2020 09:05 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15...ent-099407

Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are arguing that Republicans are in danger of giving Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the witnesses he wants by even considering a debate over new testimony.

I cant believe weak minded cucks fell for this kinda crap during jug ears tenure.

Thank you Magnificent Orange Emperor for giving this country a big T shot.

Keep clinging to false hope sheeple

(01-16-2020 09:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

Jeez are ******* blind.

No, just still believing everything he sees/hears from the MSM.

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

that's always been my take on this bs....that, and at least drag it out for a month or two....

pull some strings Owl.....make it happen, cap'n...

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

Oh hell yes he is!

(01-16-2020 10:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.
I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?
He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

Investigating criminal activity is not inviting election interference. And withholding aid (which didn't happen) or delaying it (which did) are not uncommon occurrences.

In part that is why I don't think they need witnesses.

Article One - Abuse of Power.

It is not illegal to investigate, or for the head of state to ask another country to assist in an investigation. The call was clearly discussing past-tense actions that occurred in 2016. At the time of the call, Biden was not (and still is not) his political opponent in the 2020 election.

The House Managers have not made known any direct first-hand evidence or knowledge that clearly and implicitly shows Trump using his office for political gain in the 2020 election. Aid was released without any of the alleged conditions having been met. Further, the Article of Impeachment reference Trump's "previous invitations of foreign interference" as to establish a pattern of behavior. Democrats being butt-hurt over a joke does not constitute an impeachable offense.

Article Two - Obstruction of Congress

The unprecedented method that Democrats chose to use gave reasonable concern for the president to ask the courts to weigh in. Democrats chose to push forward without allowing the co-equal executive branch to ask for clarification and legal precedent from the judicial branch.

Put plainly, this is bull**** and Chief Justice Roberts would almost certainly side with Republicans and Trump in that the House Democrats should have waited on the courts rather than rushing impeachment. Pelosi deciding to hold the articles of impeachment for a month negates any claim the house dems have to this being an urgent matter which could not wait for the courts to rule. Her actions also undermine the notion that Trump presents an ongoing threat and must be removed prior to the 2020 election.

Trump Not Guilty of charges presented. Case Closed, move on.

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

Agreed. Common sense.

You can round up 25 people in any small town in America and come up with more common sense than in all of Congress and the Washington press corps.

(01-17-2020 10:09 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 10:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.
I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?
He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

Investigating criminal activity is not inviting election interference. And withholding aid (which didn't happen) or delaying it (which did) are not uncommon occurrences.

In part that is why I don't think they need witnesses.

Article One - Abuse of Power.

It is not illegal to investigate, or for the head of state to ask another country to assist in an investigation. The call was clearly discussing past-tense actions that occurred in 2016. At the time of the call, Biden was not (and still is not) his political opponent in the 2020 election.

The House Managers have not made known any direct first-hand evidence or knowledge that clearly and implicitly shows Trump using his office for political gain in the 2020 election. Aid was released without any of the alleged conditions having been met. Further, the Article of Impeachment reference Trump's "previous invitations of foreign interference" as to establish a pattern of behavior. Democrats being butt-hurt over a joke does not constitute an impeachable offense.

Article Two - Obstruction of Congress

The unprecedented method that Democrats chose to use gave reasonable concern for the president to ask the courts to weigh in. Democrats chose to push forward without allowing the co-equal executive branch to ask for clarification and legal precedent from the judicial branch.

Put plainly, this is bull**** and Chief Justice Roberts would almost certainly side with Republicans and Trump in that the House Democrats should have waited on the courts rather than rushing impeachment. Pelosi deciding to hold the articles of impeachment for a month negates any claim the house dems have to this being an urgent matter which could not wait for the courts to rule. Her actions also undermine the notion that Trump presents an ongoing threat and must be removed prior to the 2020 election.

Trump Not Guilty of charges presented. Case Closed, move on.

I don't think Roberts has the guts, but I'd love to see him lecture Pelosi & Schiff on such an outrageous article as #2. Let the Senate vote so they can oppose that happening to a future president after telling them he would dismiss it in a regular court. Then personally asking Booker, Warren, Sanders, Harris, et.al. if they would be willing to be removed from office for not providing anything Congress wanted without even going to court.

(01-16-2020 09:58 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I would prefer they address only the 2 articles of impeachment as passed and presented by the House.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree.

(01-16-2020 09:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind having some witnesses. I'd give Schumer Bolton in exchange for Crazy Joe, Hunter, the whistleblower, and Schiff.

I still don't see where there is a case if there was reasonable suspicion that Burisma, Hunter, and possibly Joe, may have been engaged in illegal or corrupt activity. And Hunter's absurdly outrageous contract with Burmisma at least raises that possibility.

What would that have to do with Drumpf's case?

He's not at liberty to withhold aid or invite election interference regardless.

We don't know of anybody named Drumpf.