A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

[Ralph]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

Without witnesses? Who is attempting to sell you that line of shit? The House managers had 18 witnesses in their soviet style star chamber anti-rule of law hearing. Yes 18 (counting the witness that is under witness protection.....IG Michael Atkinson whose transcript Shitforbrains is clutching harder than his own nut sack because if the transcript were offered to the senate record it would impeach Shitforbrains.

This nonsense that Clinton had NEW WITNESSES introduced after the house impeached is total bullshit....there were no new witnesses, all the witnesses in the Clinton impeachment were the same witnesses called in the house.

The democrats had their chance to subpoena Bolton or any other NEW WITNESS they wanted during the supposed house impeachment. You came to the senate supposedly locked and loaded ready to present YOUR IMPEACHABLE evidences that you had collected in an impeachment procedure.

You can't demand NEW WITNESSES....discovery was over when you declared WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO IMPEACH.

GAME OVER: How THINK do you STUPID the American voters to be?

Indeed you are entitled to witnesses in a senate tribunal.....the same witnesses you came to the senate with, the witness testimonies that you declared was enough to impeach. You could make a motion to floor a vote on bringing in your actual impeachment witnesses...but I don't think that Shitforbrains or Cry Baby Schumer would enjoy Trump's defense team getting to question those 18 witnesses again (something they did not get the chance to do in the house)….ESPECIALLY witness number 18....Michael Atkinson.

[canceled.2021.2]

SEVENTEEN WITNESSES, ALL CALLED BY THE STALIN-O-CRATS, IS BEING CALLED "NO WITNESSES" BY THE CONGENITAL LIARS IN THE POLITBURO AND FAKE NEWS .

Actually 18 witnesses. One they wouldn’t release the transcript.

[Darth Omar]

Maybe it’s time someone subpoenaed Shifty’s transcript.

[Stretch]

WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED IN THE SENATE.....

Exactly! And, that's 18 more witnesses than Dims let US have during the House impeachment hearings!

[Irish]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

[christiefan915]

Horse shit. The Senate has total control on how the trial is conducted. The House had 17 witnesses and Trump had 0 . I laugh when the Des whine about having no witnesses. Where is their slam dunk case? We need to get back to doing what the Senate was designed to do make laws that better our lives. This whole impeachment thing was an attempt to weaken Trump and some Senators. It’s going to blow up in slowing and Schumer’s faces.

The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.

[ThatOwlWoman]

The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.

I have a feeling that this is going to backfire badly on the (R)s this November. What do you think?

[Grokmaster]

Actually 18 witnesses. One they wouldn’t release the transcript.

TRUE. SEVENTEEN WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL...THE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS...

[christiefan915]

I have a feeling that this is going to backfire badly on the (R)s this November. What do you think?

I'm not sure but I hope so. The only bet I'd make is that if trump wins again it won't be in a landslide.

[christiefan915]

TRUE. SEVENTEEN WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL...THE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS...

And trump's lawyers could have grilled them under oath in the chamber this week but they didn't. Ask yourself why.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'm not sure but I hope so. The only bet I'd make is that if trump wins again it won't be in a landslide.

Interesting times. Guess a lot is going to depend on who eventually becomes the (D) candidate. Downstream though I think it's going to be much like 2018. You?

[Grokmaster]

I have a feeling that this is going to backfire badly on the (R)s this November. What do you think?

YEAH...AMERICA IS THRILLED W/FOUR YEARS OF LIES BY THE TREASON-O-CRATS, ATTACKING THE DULY- ELECTED POTUS, and THEIR TREMENDOUS GRIEF OVER THE DEATH(s) OF/ADN SUPPORT FOR OUR ENEMIES.


THERE WILL BE VIDEOS....

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

who sharted in here?

[Grokmaster]

The House had ZERO witnesses at the impeachment hearings. Those 17 "witnesses" you guys like to talk about were giving sworn testimony during the discovery phase last fall. If the Senate thought one or any were lying they could have called them to testify this week, but they didn't.

THEIR RECORDED TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE STALIN-O-CRATS' CASE, IN THE SENATE.


MAKEUP SOME MORE BULLSHIT.

[christiefan915]

Interesting times. Guess a lot is going to depend on who eventually becomes the (D) candidate. Downstream though I think it's going to be much like 2018. You?

I'm almost afraid to say in case I jinx it lol. I hope it's like 2018 but the trump toadies are going to be even more mobilized because of the impeachment.