Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

The GOP beef with Schiff is that same beef they had with the Russia investigation:
“ you shouldn’t have found out, so none of our guys should have been caught”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone not crazy please explain to me why Republicans think that Adam Schiff is a fact witness to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

Because distraction works with their double-digit IQ Republican supporters: "Hurrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrr, what about Shifty Schiffff???? Hurrrrr durrrr durrrr *inhales vape pen*"

They are a mafia of dunces and legit criminals.

*giggle*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone not crazy please explain to me why Republicans think that Adam Schiff is a fact witness to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

Because distraction works with their double-digit IQ Republican supporters: "Hurrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrr, what about Shifty Schiffff???? Hurrrrr durrrr durrrr *inhales vape pen*"

They are a mafia of dunces and legit criminals.

Best title ever for a book covering the Trump administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP beef with Schiff is that same beef they had with the Russia investigation:
“ you shouldn’t have found out, so none of our guys should have been caught”

The GOP beefs with Schiff are:

- For over 2 years, he stated publicly that he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He never produced that evidence (because it was a lie) and the complaint media has never pressed him on it.
- He disparaged Nunes when the memo about FISA came out a few years back. Then, he produced his own erroneous memo. Turns out, Nunes' memo was spot on and Schiff's memo was full of llies, again.
- He totally made up a conversation between Trump and Zelensky during the hearings. When members of the House tried to sanction his false speech, the Dems refused.
- He lied about his contact with the whistleblower. Flat out lied.

These are just a few. He cannot be trusted.

[Anonymous]

If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP beef with Schiff is that same beef they had with the Russia investigation:
“ you shouldn’t have found out, so none of our guys should have been caught”

The GOP beefs with Schiff are:

- For over 2 years, he stated publicly that he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He never produced that evidence (because it was a lie) and the complaint media has never pressed him on it.
- He disparaged Nunes when the memo about FISA came out a few years back. Then, he produced his own erroneous memo. Turns out, Nunes' memo was spot on and Schiff's memo was full of llies, again.
- He totally made up a conversation between Trump and Zelensky during the hearings. When members of the House tried to sanction his false speech, the Dems refused.
- He lied about his contact with the whistleblower. Flat out lied.

These are just a few. He cannot be trusted.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Every republican senator knows he’s guilty. They also know that this is a BFD, but they have idiots for constituents. They have 2 choices:
1) remain feckless chickensh#t cowards and try to hold onto their jobs. Educating their public would take real work, and as evidenced by Trump rallies, his supporters mostly lack the mental acuity to understand what the president did and why it matters.
2) push for witnesses and face Trump and his twitter mob. Possibly risk a primary. Lose their jobs. And Trump is still standing, because 40% of the electorate just doesn’t care for various reasons.
The evidence is clear, we just have a foxnews upside world where 40% of the public gets to pretend the sky is green and grass is red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Every republican senator knows he’s guilty. They also know that this is a BFD, but they have idiots for constituents. They have 2 choices:
1) remain feckless chickensh#t cowards and try to hold onto their jobs. Educating their public would take real work, and as evidenced by Trump rallies, his supporters mostly lack the mental acuity to understand what the president did and why it matters.
2) push for witnesses and face Trump and his twitter mob. Possibly risk a primary. Lose their jobs. And Trump is still standing, because 40% of the electorate just doesn’t care for various reasons.
The evidence is clear, we just have a foxnews upside world where 40% of the public gets to pretend the sky is green and grass is red.

Wow. Lots of inflammatory accusations and name calling there, friend. As they say, if you can't support an argument, resort to calling names.
And, you didn't really answer the question....... why do you need MORE witnesses if the evidence is so damn overwhelming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Because the Senate is going to let him off anyway. The very least Pelosi can do is point out to voters that trials have evidence and witnesses. That if the Republicans in the Senate weren't corrupt, they would at least pretend to care about considering the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP beef with Schiff is that same beef they had with the Russia investigation:
“ you shouldn’t have found out, so none of our guys should have been caught”

The GOP beefs with Schiff are:

- For over 2 years, he stated publicly that he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He never produced that evidence (because it was a lie) and the complaint media has never pressed him on it.
- He disparaged Nunes when the memo about FISA came out a few years back. Then, he produced his own erroneous memo. Turns out, Nunes' memo was spot on and Schiff's memo was full of llies, again.
- He totally made up a conversation between Trump and Zelensky during the hearings. When members of the House tried to sanction his false speech, the Dems refused.
- He lied about his contact with the whistleblower. Flat out lied.

These are just a few. He cannot be trusted.

So what?

So, I am just listing some of the beefs the GOP has with Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Every republican senator knows he’s guilty. They also know that this is a BFD, but they have idiots for constituents. They have 2 choices:
1) remain feckless chickensh#t cowards and try to hold onto their jobs. Educating their public would take real work, and as evidenced by Trump rallies, his supporters mostly lack the mental acuity to understand what the president did and why it matters.
2) push for witnesses and face Trump and his twitter mob. Possibly risk a primary. Lose their jobs. And Trump is still standing, because 40% of the electorate just doesn’t care for various reasons.
The evidence is clear, we just have a foxnews upside world where 40% of the public gets to pretend the sky is green and grass is red.

Well said. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Because the Senate is going to let him off anyway. The very least Pelosi can do is point out to voters that trials have evidence and witnesses. That if the Republicans in the Senate weren't corrupt, they would at least pretend to care about considering the evidence.

Ah, I see. The evidence is so damn overwhelming, but it's because Republicans are corrupt that he won't be removed from office.
Then, tell me friend, why was the ONLY bipartisan vote for impeachment a vote AGAINST impeachment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the evidence for impeachment is so overwhelming, why are the Democrats whining about additional witnesses and documents?

Because so many Republicans ignored subpoena's issued by the House? Why wouldn't they testify?

Look friend - all but a couple of the Democrats voted FOR impeachment because they found the evidence so overwhelming, so compelling, so ironclad.

Before the articles even have gone to the Senate, they are now crying for additional witnesses and additional documents.

If the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling and ironclad that they voted FOR impeachment, why the need for more?

This is just like Nancy saying that impeachment was so necessary to complete so quickly because there was such a national security risk of keeping Trump in office - and then she proceeds to hold onto the articles for a month.

Again, why did 15+ Republicans involved ignore their subpoenas? The House would clearly have more evidence - including possibly exculpatory evidence that favors the POTUS - had they testified.

Why did they refuse to provide evidence?