Senate GOP defends Trump, despite oath to be impartial impeachment jurors

Hypocrisy - and no DPST has chimed in on this one.

Of course, it is not the DPST "narrative" - impartial is not in their lexicon.

Hypocrites. Originally Posted by oeb11

And who got the hypocrite of the day award today? That would be Chuck Shumer. Shumer gave a speech today saying he wanted 4 witnesses called, Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair (OMB) and Duffy some guy that was also on the call who apparently will tell us exactly what Lt. Colonel Vindman told us.


Shumer says if these 4 people aren't allowed to be called, it will prove Trump has something to hide.


Good fucking grief! Isn't that the exact same argument that Republicans were making and the Democrats didn't give a shit? Why couldn't Republicans in the House call witnesses like the WB? What were they trying to hide? Maybe that Schiff will be proven to have lied about meeting the WB, coaching the WB, hell maybe he invented the WB, how the hell would we know without questioning Schiff?


What if McConnell says "go ahead and call Mulvaney and Bolton" and they both refuse which means Democrats would have to take them to court to get an order to testify, the same thing the Democrats didn't want to do in the House because it would take to much time to follow the law and it might not go in their favor. Me, I'm for following the law ALWAYS. If the law says that the Congress does not have an absolute right to subpoena anybody it wants, let the court decide. That's the way the law works.

Cogent posts - thank you - HF

Well ^^ correct they ( DIM-WITs) want to pick and chose who they want That's not a case that's a bad shit show ,

They should gets Trump to put his hand on a Bible and promise to tells the truth.

It must have healed by now! LOLLING.

Thank you - YR Hoe

Shumer says if these 4 people aren't allowed to be called, it will prove Trump has something to hide.


Good fucking grief! Isn't that the exact same argument that Republicans were making and the Democrats didn't give a shit? Why couldn't Republicans in the House call witnesses like the WB? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

because a Whistle Blower is by nature an unrevealed source.. besides that the WB told about the Trump phone call, that Trump himself released, thinking it would exonerate him. it's not at all the same argument.. Trump blocked those 4 people from testifying, why would Schiff then allow the White House to cherry-pick its own witnesses? you make zero sense.

CT - ready to hang Trump right now, aren't You???

because a Whistle Blower is by nature an unrevealed source..


Everybody paying any attention knows the name of the WB. That aside, the WB can testify in secret or behind a screen with voice changed, no need to be "revealed" but he must be questioned. It is a bedrock principal in law that everyone has the right to confront their accuser.

The

Confrontation

Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution

provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused

shall

enjoy the right…to be

confronted

with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right

is to

have

a face

-to-

face confrontation

with witnesses who are offering testimonial

Yeah, yeah, it's not a criminal prosecution! Bullshit! Same principal applies. The WB was the first to accuse the President of wrong doing which at various points the Democrats have suggested it was a crime, bribery but the principal remains the same. You have the right to challenge your accuser in public to be questioned in public but his or her identity can in some instances remain concealed. Nobody gets to make an accusation and not be questioned by the accused.

besides that the WB told about the Trump phone call, that Trump himself released, thinking it would exonerate him. it's not at all the same argument..


I have no idea what argument you are making with that senseless comment.


Trump blocked those 4 people from testifying, why would Schiff then allow the White House to cherry-pick its own witnesses? you make zero sense. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

First, Schiff has absolutely no authority to "allow" anything. Pay attention. The rules in the Senate, like the House gives the majority the right to set the rules and the rules will now be that the majority gets to approve or not, all witnesses just like Schiff did in the House. Talk about making no sense. But I have the feeling that McConnell will allow one or more of those witnesses to testify if they chose to. They just might refuse until a court orders them to testify.



What's that old saying "better to let others think you make no sense then to open your mouth and prove it". I literally have to correct almost everything you write like "all the previous witnesses gave hearsay testimony", I proved you wrong. So I'll prove you wrong again not that it will do any good. You seem to be one of those people who just can't bring themselves to admit when the are wrong. Don't worry, you are not alone.

HF +1

Yup again Rule of law that the haters have a big problem with , Whistle blower anonymous , we feel we think folks that's NOT a case ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,And now the fisa court has launched a missile , waitin to see where that hits .

because a Whistle Blower is by nature an unrevealed source.. besides that the WB told about the Trump phone call, that Trump himself released, thinking it would exonerate him. it's not at all the same argument.. Trump blocked those 4 people from testifying, why would Schiff then allow the White House to cherry-pick its own witnesses? you make zero sense. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you do know the whistleblower law does not give full anonymity yeah? only in the workplace. the patsy will step forward into the light!


BAHHAHAA

First, Schiff has absolutely no authority to "allow" anything. Pay attention. The rules in the Senate, like the House gives the majority the right to set the rules and the rules will now be that the majority gets to approve or not, all witnesses just like Schiff did in the House. Talk about making no sense. But I have the feeling that McConnell will allow one or more of those witnesses to testify Originally Posted by HedonistForever

you say Schiff has no authority to allow anything, the House and Senate rules are the same, then say McConnell "will allow.."

getting your feet tangled, are you?

CT - ready to hang Trump right now, aren't You??? Originally Posted by oeb11

why do you say that? I'm one of maybe 2-3 guys here who want a full transparent trial, with witnesses called. it is your side who has decided Trump's innocence already.

why do you say that? I'm one of maybe 2-3 guys here who want a full transparent trial, with witnesses called. it is your side who has decided Trump's innocence already. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

yet you claim "The Witness" shouldn't be called ... why is that, Mr. Transparent Aluminum?


BAHHAHAAAA

yet you claim "The Witness" shouldn't be called ... why is that, Mr. Transparent Aluminum?


BAHHAHAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I didn't say the WB shouldn't be called.. I said it is protocol to remain anonymous. I want EVERYONE remotely associated with the impeachment to be called.. you guys don't, you want to cherry-pick.

I implied that the WB was rightly left out of House testimony, that is how it should be.. but the Senate is the real trial, bring him on.