Republicans vote for a cover up on all documents and witnesses.

[Spamature]

I don't know.

Seem political brinkmanship gone wrong to me.

Destroying the country...

More like cover up gone the way cover ups go, by definition.

cov·er-up
/ˈkəvərˌəp/
noun
noun: cover-up; plural noun: cover-ups; noun: coverup; plural noun: coverups
1.
an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime


In this case it both a mistake and criminal.

 

[NinaS]

Consider how absurd that position is...

The only witnesses called by the House were Trump’s own people - not a Dem operative among them - and you bitch about their “fairness.”

And Trump blocked many others who would've been called to testify. What's going on in this country right now isn't much different than what is going on in Russia. One of our female PJ cons, who acts like she is deeply in love with that fat orange slob, indicated the other day that she thinks Trump should get a third term. If that would gag a maggot what would?

 

[Drumcollie]

Deplorable is as Deplorables are !

They always say the cover up is usually worse than the crime.

America will remember what they did this day, on the next election day.

No links and no proof.

Better find you another Hillary funded Dossier.

 

[Dino]

So hiding the evidence is good for republicans, eh?

It’s not supposed to be a one-sidedbaffair. Is it? Evidence should work both ways

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/total-political-distraction-schumer-wont-offer-impeachment-deal-that-includes-hunter-biden-testimony

This was a problem.

 

[reason10]

Deplorable is as Deplorables are !

They always say the cover up is usually worse than the crime.

America will remember what they did this day, on the next election day.

There are no witnesses because no crime was committed. The exact transcript of that phone call was released and NO crimes were indicated. The people who testified gave OPINIONS and generally committed perjury.

Those are the facts edited

 

[PhilFish]

More like cover up gone the way cover ups go, by definition.

cov·er-up
/ˈkəvərˌəp/
noun
noun: cover-up; plural noun: cover-ups; noun: coverup; plural noun: coverups
1.
an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime


In this case it both a mistake and criminal.

You tell em, both sides
.

 

[Boca]

Did you read the GAO report. Because what ever he did and when ever he did it.

HE BROKE THE LAW just the same.

Got it....no document, no order, no resolution, no shiff, just your lie.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[middleview]

It’s not supposed to be a one-sidedbaffair. Is it? Evidence should work both ways

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/total-political-distraction-schumer-wont-offer-impeachment-deal-that-includes-hunter-biden-testimony

This was a problem.

Hunter and Joe Biden know nothing of Trump's violation of the law. They weren't there. They know what they heard in the news.

That is an attempt to smear Joe Biden and accomplish what Trump wanted by forcing Ukraine to announce an investigation.

 

[Dino]

Hunter and Joe Biden know nothing of Trump's violation of the law. They weren't there. They know what they heard in the news.

That is an attempt to smear Joe Biden and accomplish what Trump wanted by forcing Ukraine to announce an investigation.

They're the central figures associated with Trump's request for further investigations into corruption. Of course, and as you well know, Biden also had a glaring issue of "abuse of power" more so than Trump's involving Ukraine. Why should that not also be put into evidence (with of course his opportunity to explain it)?

If people who "weren't there" should not be considered witnesses to be heard, that would include Schiff's phantom "whistle blower".

Of course Zelensky isn't even claiming he was prompted or extorted into doing ANYTHING.

Frankly, your side has no more evidence to give, do they?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

This is GREAT! The constitutional power of the president is preserved. They got it right.

The imperial presidency....which is against our Constitution.

 

[middleview]

They're the central figures associated with Trump's request for further investigations into corruption. Of course, and as you well know, Biden also had a glaring issue of "abuse of power" more so than Trump's involving Ukraine. Why should that not also be put into evidence (with of course his opportunity to explain it)?

If people who "weren't there" should not be considered witnesses to be heard, that would include Schiff's phantom "whistle blower".

Of course Zelensky isn't even claiming he was prompted or extorted into doing ANYTHING.

Frankly, your side has no more evidence to give, do they?

Trump didn't call Zelensky to investigate corruption. He simply wanted them to announce they were investigating Joe Biden and at a time when polls showed Joe Biden winning in 2020.

The impeachment isn't about justifying Trump's hold, since the hold was illegal and Trump was advised of that. It also isn't justified by comparing it to the demand that Shokin be fired. The IMF, the EU and thousands of anti-corruption demonstrators also called for him to be fired.

 

[Spamature]

No links and no proof.

Better find you another Hillary funded Dossier.

It's rigged. Your party has destroyed our system.

Deplorables.

 

[Spamature]

You tell em, both sides
.

What ? Care to back that claim up ?

 

[Spamature]

Got it....no document, no order, no resolution, no shiff, just your lie.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You've seen it or at least you've been told the basics.

Why feign ignorance ?

 

[Spamature]

There are no witnesses because no crime was committed. The exact transcript of that phone call was released and NO crimes were indicated. The people who testified gave OPINIONS and generally committed perjury.

Those are the facts edited

You wingers bitched and moaned about having witnesses.

Trump can have all the witnesses he wants all he got to do it bat his eye at Moscow Mitch and it would be done.

But what is your excuse for not wanting them now. Were you just parroting what the right wing media and Fakebook feeds the feeble minds on the right.

 

[PhilFish]

What ? Care to back that claim up ?

what what?

 

[Spamature]

what what?

What are the Dems covering up ?

 

[PhilFish]

What are the Dems covering up ?

i dont know. we need an investigation...

 

[Spamature]

i dont know. we need an investigation...

So nothing as far as you know.
There goes your chance to back it I suppose.

 

[Colorforms]

To conclude that the House must run back and forth up the ladder to the SCOTUS every time the “president” wishes to frivolously defy an impeachment subpoena, or prevent a question from being answered, is to say that there is no impeachment power. But there it is, right in the Constitution.

That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. The president does not function at the behest of the house.