Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We aren’t friends. The evidence as presented is more than sufficient, but I want those a-holes to squirm under oath. I’d love to see more of the Dbags in Trumps orbit hauled off the prison.
The loose transcript of the call, and the withheld funds are clear and concise, and supported by public statements by both Trump and Mulvaney. If want to live in make believe land where that isn’t a shake down to f with our electoral process, nothing anyone says is going to convince you. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.

[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.

Christ, you people are tedious. Nobody wants to engage you because YOU DONT LISTEN to anything you don’t want to hear. Same old stupid, tired arguments based on lies and misrepresentations. I’m sorry you can’t handle reality, but we don’t have to humor you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Justin Amash voted for impeachment.

What is your argument here? Morality is not decided by popular vote. You aren't ever going to convince my that what Trump did was right, no matter how many people claim it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Justin Amash voted for impeachment.

What is your argument here? Morality is not decided by popular vote. You aren't ever going to convince my that what Trump did was right, no matter how many people claim it is.

He's an independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We aren’t friends. The evidence as presented is more than sufficient, but I want those a-holes to squirm under oath. I’d love to see more of the Dbags in Trumps orbit hauled off the prison.
The loose transcript of the call, and the withheld funds are clear and concise, and supported by public statements by both Trump and Mulvaney. If want to live in make believe land where that isn’t a shake down to f with our electoral process, nothing anyone says is going to convince you. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.

Well, at least we have an honest one here.
This is what it's all about.

And, the transcript of the call shows that Trump committed no crime and committed no impeachable offense. You all keep claiming this is all about the 2020 election - when all along it has been about investigating the 2016 election. Doesn't stop you from promoting a false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Welp, I called and emailed my senator Susan Collins today to let her know that we Mainers want to see the evidence, including any new evidence, and see testimony in the trial. We'll see if she listens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We aren’t friends. The evidence as presented is more than sufficient, but I want those a-holes to squirm under oath. I’d love to see more of the Dbags in Trumps orbit hauled off the prison.
The loose transcript of the call, and the withheld funds are clear and concise, and supported by public statements by both Trump and Mulvaney. If want to live in make believe land where that isn’t a shake down to f with our electoral process, nothing anyone says is going to convince you. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.

Well, at least we have an honest one here.
This is what it's all about.

And, the transcript of the call shows that Trump committed no crime and committed no impeachable offense. You all keep claiming this is all about the 2020 election - when all along it has been about investigating the 2016 election. Doesn't stop you from promoting a false narrative.

Yes. I honestly like to see criminals in prison. Why don’t you? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you not support our constitution? Read this slowly. Move your lips if it helps...
Trump wanted a phony investigation into the Bidens to weaken Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He withheld OUR MONEY. He f*cked with OUR FOREIGN POLICY, for his personal gain.
But guess what. He’s getting a Ukraine investigation, just not the one he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, I called and emailed my senator Susan Collins today to let her know that we Mainers want to see the evidence, including any new evidence, and see testimony in the trial. We'll see if she listens.

I’ll be calling rob Portman.
- Ohioan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We aren’t friends. The evidence as presented is more than sufficient, but I want those a-holes to squirm under oath. I’d love to see more of the Dbags in Trumps orbit hauled off the prison.
The loose transcript of the call, and the withheld funds are clear and concise, and supported by public statements by both Trump and Mulvaney. If want to live in make believe land where that isn’t a shake down to f with our electoral process, nothing anyone says is going to convince you. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.

Well, at least we have an honest one here.
This is what it's all about.

And, the transcript of the call shows that Trump committed no crime and committed no impeachable offense. You all keep claiming this is all about the 2020 election - when all along it has been about investigating the 2016 election. Doesn't stop you from promoting a false narrative.

DP. There is something seriously wrong with you. You look the other way and rationalize away criminal activity. Any true American should be horrified by Trump's behavior (not just in this instance...there are so many) and want him held accountable. Any true American should want a better person, better statesman, for our POTUS. Any true American should believe in upholding the Constitution and holding all leaders, POTUS, Congressperson, etc., to the oaths they swear when they take office.

I'll bet you aren't even honest with yourself about why you really support having this lying, cheating POTUS in office.

[Anonymous]

How is the impeachment about 2016?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is the impeachment about 2016?

Because Trump is crazy and thinks that Ukraine tried to interfere against him in the 2016 election instead of what actually happened, which was Russia interfering for him. He also thinks that CrowdStrike, a public American company, is Ukrainian and that they have the hacked DNC server in Ukraine. He is nuts.
https://apnews.com/23c9022665dc40a1a69e613459955112

[Anonymous]

Let's look at what some of the Democratic Senators had to say regarding the Clinton impeachment trial:

Leahy:

“Witnesses would not fill the holes in the Managers’ case. The Managers only became interested in hearing from witnesses once they faced trouble obtaining a conviction in the Senate,”

"They had an opportunity to interview witnesses when this matter was still before the House. But the House Judiciary Committee called no fact witnesses…Having chosen to proceed in the House without witnesses, the Managers were in no position to demand that the Senate hear witnesses. A Senate impeachment trial is not a make-up exam for an incomplete inquiry by the House."

Schumer:

“Let me say this idea that they didn’t have to call witnesses in the House and they should call them in the Senate doesn’t make sense,” Schumer responded. “You call witnesses before a grand jury and you call witnesses before a trial. So, there were some on my side, I was not among them, but some on my side who argued strongly that they outta call witnesses and they resisted it every step of the way.”

“There has not been a good explanation why 60,000 pages of testimony was good enough for the House but isn’t good enough for the Senate,” Schumer continued.

“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,” Schumer said during a press conference on January 27, 1999, later adding, “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-demands-witnesses-at-senate-trial-heres-what-he-said-during-clintons-impeachment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the impeachment about 2016?

Because Trump is crazy and thinks that Ukraine tried to interfere against him in the 2016 election instead of what actually happened, which was Russia interfering for him. He also thinks that CrowdStrike, a public American company, is Ukrainian and that they have the hacked DNC server in Ukraine. He is nuts.
https://apnews.com/23c9022665dc40a1a69e613459955112

Yes. Based on information in this article, among others:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at what some of the Democratic Senators had to say regarding the Clinton impeachment trial:

Leahy:

“Witnesses would not fill the holes in the Managers’ case. The Managers only became interested in hearing from witnesses once they faced trouble obtaining a conviction in the Senate,”

"They had an opportunity to interview witnesses when this matter was still before the House. But the House Judiciary Committee called no fact witnesses…Having chosen to proceed in the House without witnesses, the Managers were in no position to demand that the Senate hear witnesses. A Senate impeachment trial is not a make-up exam for an incomplete inquiry by the House."

Schumer:

“Let me say this idea that they didn’t have to call witnesses in the House and they should call them in the Senate doesn’t make sense,” Schumer responded. “You call witnesses before a grand jury and you call witnesses before a trial. So, there were some on my side, I was not among them, but some on my side who argued strongly that they outta call witnesses and they resisted it every step of the way.”

“There has not been a good explanation why 60,000 pages of testimony was good enough for the House but isn’t good enough for the Senate,” Schumer continued.

“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,” Schumer said during a press conference on January 27, 1999, later adding, “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-demands-witnesses-at-senate-trial-heres-what-he-said-during-clintons-impeachment

You understand that the Clinton impeachment was the result of a 4-year investigation by Ken Starr and that ALL the witnesses -- including the President -- had already testified under oath. Unlike Trump, Clinton provided all documents and witnesses that Starr requested. This is a completely different situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We aren’t friends. The evidence as presented is more than sufficient, but I want those a-holes to squirm under oath. I’d love to see more of the Dbags in Trumps orbit hauled off the prison.
The loose transcript of the call, and the withheld funds are clear and concise, and supported by public statements by both Trump and Mulvaney. If want to live in make believe land where that isn’t a shake down to f with our electoral process, nothing anyone says is going to convince you. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.

Well, at least we have an honest one here.
This is what it's all about.

And, the transcript of the call shows that Trump committed no crime and committed no impeachable offense. You all keep claiming this is all about the 2020 election - when all along it has been about investigating the 2016 election. Doesn't stop you from promoting a false narrative.

DP. There is something seriously wrong with you. You look the other way and rationalize away criminal activity. Any true American should be horrified by Trump's behavior (not just in this instance...there are so many) and want him held accountable. Any true American should want a better person, better statesman, for our POTUS. Any true American should believe in upholding the Constitution and holding all leaders, POTUS, Congressperson, etc., to the oaths they swear when they take office.

I'll bet you aren't even honest with yourself about why you really support having this lying, cheating POTUS in office.

+1