3 Dream witnesses at the impeachment trial

Since the IG proved Nunes right, does the dem clown show really want him to testify?

 

Liberals and leftists already sure Trump is guilty, and that they have the evidence. So this cry for more witnesses is nonsense.

 

Apparently the speaker of the house didn't get the memo. Let her deliver the articles of impeachment and let the games begin.

P.S. Trump had not been indicted. Where DO you get this stuff?

 

Sure it could. And besides seeing Mitch McConnell's reaction, priceless. It could even lower the numbers of votes needed for conviction a considerable amount

 

My 3 dream witnesses for the Senate Impeachment Trial would be Mushmouth, Charlie Brown’s teacher and Evan Baxter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNUdS6RiA28


Oh wait a minute, I believe we already heard this in the House Inquiry and Judiciary Hearings.

 

You guys are out of line. The First Lady doesn't deserve this disrespect.

 

The trunk monkey.



Rodney Dangerfield (RIP)



And since the Senate is controlled by the GOP, Tim Conway (RIP) could tell the elephant story.

 

Not at all. We're reminded over and over that' s she's a great first lady because she's hot and the last one was a bad first lady because she was normal. I'm just going with the flow and commenting that she could dazzle senators just as Sharon Stone did her interrogators. Why it's a compliment in fact.

 

Inside knowledge shared under oath rather than fanatical zeal enraged by the prospect of revelation.

The imperative remains exposing as much of the truth as is possible, whilst Trump tries to hide it.

Insiders in the know testifying under oath and providing subpoenaed documents that relate to Trump's Ukrainian caper are essential to gleaning even further knowledge of what went down.

That some can't handle the truth is obvious, but it will out.

I remain opposed to removing the scoundrel from office, but enthusiastically support the pursuit of truth. His persisting in his lie that he would follow the customary practice of releasing his tax returns is an enduring example of his mendacity

Zealots' desperate need to conceal the truth does not negate the responsibility of uncovering it.

​

 

elvis

jim morrison

jimi hendrix

 

He did not hear it directly. I did not hear it directly. I am a decorated war veteran. He is a decorated war veteran. The big difference is that he was wounded . i was not wounded. Generally, it was considered a good thing to not get wounded.

 

Ascertain the truth as America's integrity demands.

Do not be afraid of it.

 

I was being sarcastic. Vindman was given credibility for being a wounded decorated combat veteran. That has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of his testimony.

 

Vindman was one of a number of impressive career public servants who honorably testified.

Whether Bolton, Mulvaney and others is the know would corroborate or contradict their revealing testimonies can only be known if their gags are removed.

Some deem it self-serving if they are prevented from coming clean under oath.

 

he testified only about what he thought, not about what he actually heard. His military service had nothing to do with the reliability or accuracy of his testimony.

 

You misunderstand the system. Supreme Courts have already ruled on limits to executive privilege, in both cases of Nixon and Clinton the courts rulings were unanimous.

It was Trump that had the onus to take to court the lawfully issued subpoenas, he didn't, didn't comply and was impeached for it. It's worth noting that he did take his tax returns release to the Supreme Court because they are private papers. Why only those subpoenas and not the others? Probably because he knew the Supreme Court would take them up because of the twist but the others would have been rejected out of hand as settled law and he'd lose immediately. He probably anticipated that the House would take them to court and take many, many months to be resolved. SURPRISE!

 

You have pretty low standards for what makes a First Lady great. You are the epitome of shallowness.

 

Fanatical Trumers rage at the prospect of insiders in the know providing sworn testimony in the Senate but the farcical idea of an accused being allowed to bar key witnesses in his trial is absurd.

Ascertain the truth, without fear of the consequences.

 

Actually I have pretty high ones that don't involve how pretty she is. Read carefully, it's her supporters that are fixated on her appearance.

 

Your own source tells you that the Court held that "a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process."

There are two differences between what Trump is ignoring and what your source says that the court decided (you didn't cite the Supreme Court decisions themselves, but I don't dispute the claim. There are always limits to legal claims and defenses, of immunity, of privilege. But the courts decide what they are, not some committee with an obvious political agenda.)

The biggest difference is that a politically hostile Congressional committee hearing is not a "judicial process." The lesser difference is that there is no criminal trial going on. There isn't even a crime alleged in the still-undelivered Articles of Impeachment.

Anyway, either side can always go to court to enforce or to quash a subpoena. You can't subpoena a president for telling people to resist a congressional subpoena. Well, you can, but it's wrong and a losing proposition.

The House is acting like they decide everything. They actually decide very little on their own. Thank god.

 

See, this post reveals the problem. Anyone who even questions Nancy, Chuck, Jerry, and Adam is not only a Trump supporter, but a fanatical Trump supporter who "rages." That's known as name-calling, not analysis.

As the impeachment balloon continues to sag, I predict that they will become, in the left's mind, the "fascistic, idiotic, screaming, hysterical, terrifying, mindless Trump voters." Whether they voted for Trump or not.

I think it's clear who is fanatical in this debate.

 

Congress's right to subpoena is undisputed. Their right to enforce subpoenas has been upheld. They took into custody, for example, the assistant attorney general during the Teapot dome investigations when he failed to show and that was the first (but not only) time the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so. The Executive branch received subpoenas for documents and individuals and the Executive branch failed to comply. The act of defiance without court protection put the Chief executive in contempt and rather than drag it out they impeached him for that. If Trump felt they were unlawful he needed to initiate a court order to stay them. Nixon tried as did Clinton and failed. Why on earth would you expect congress to seek a stay?

 

Yes, as is their right to enforce it. Have at it, Jerry.

I haven't seen much in the way of an enforcement action. Other than "impeach!" (Slight over reaction.) Of course, they don't really want Trump to cooperate. If he did, they'd have nothing to beach about.

 

If there is nothing there for them to "beach" about why accept being impeached over it? You say they had nothing to gain but he had everything to lose by not complying.


*In order for them to send their sgt at arm's the have to open a jail and get the bureau of prisons involved etc...Saved a lot of money, impeached him, remember the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility.

 

I cannot limit it to 3 witnesses .

There is no point in doing anything more unless we are willing to dig to the bottom of everything..

Trump, Bolton, Mulvaney , the Bidens, the Democrats involved in the hearings, all of Obama's staff that had anything to do with Ukraine, everyone from the DNC.

Question everyone, under oath with no immunity and a promise for maximum sentencing on all perjury charges.

Clean house...