Trump "you got 2 weeks!"

MudDucker

Moderator
Staff member
If they invoked the hearsay rule, the demonrats would have nothing.
 
Thread starter #3
They don't have anything anyway.........

They will not introduce any new evidence or witnesses......

This is about to be over with faster than a cat can lick his behind with his tail up and his tongue drawn.
 

dwhee87

Senior Member
If they had anything at all, Pelosi would've RAN those articles of impeachment over to the Senate chamber the second they were signed. The fact they slow walked it to try to milk the media cycle some more is a glaring admission that they need the MSM to help them make their case, because they've not made it with fact.
 
LOL, the Dems want's the Senate to take the garbage they generated in the House as credible. This after allowing no Republican to challenge it, during their "investigation". They are trying to fly an airplane with one wing.
 
They don't have anything anyway.........

They will not introduce any new evidence or witnesses......

This is about to be over with faster than a cat can lick his behind with his tail up and his tongue drawn.
I still don't understand either the Republican defense or the Democrat's case. Why would either side need witnesses if Trump's new defense team is making the case that he did what he is accused of, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. Why have witnesses if the facts are not really in dispute?
 
The president says he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden to uncover corruption, dems say he did it to influence the 2020 election. The fact that he did it isn't in dispute. So it's really about your interpretation of why he did it, not if the actions took place. That's part of what I cannot grasp, why talk about hearsay when nobody disputes the actions took place? Why call the whistle blower? It's really about motivations.
 
Last edited:
The president says he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden to uncover corruption, dems say he did it to influence the 2020 election. The fact that he did it isn't in dispute. So it's really about your interpretation of why he did it, not if the actions took place. That's part of what I cannot grasp, why talk about hearsay when nobody disputes the actions took place? Why call the whistle blower? It's really about motivations.
The motivation does not matter. Neither does the act. The act was a lawful act by the Presbo under Article 2 of the Constn.
 
The motivation does not matter. Neither does the act. The act was a lawful act by the Presbo under Article 2 of the Constn.
Ok. But why talk about the whistle blower and hearsay rules if the president's defense team isn't denying his actions but saying they were all kosher?
 
Ok. But why talk about the whistle blower and hearsay rules if the president's defense team isn't denying his actions but saying they were all kosher?
Because the hearsay and the so called whistleblower all say he did it to hurt his political rival. There is no doubt Biden would be hurt by that information going public but the fact remains Biden "Did It" and that is the central issue, not Trump's request the Ukrainians investigate it on their end.
 
What did the senate say to the house about all this?
Senate Republicans were making a defense about the facts of the case until trump's defense team changed the narrative. Senators were still making statements against the impeachment today that contradict the president's new defense team. It's all an impossible waste of time. No one is changing their vote in the Senate. Have a vote now and let the election decide in November.
 
Top