Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Edge-]

Trump would be nightmare on the stand....as he and the truth have a rather promiscuous relationship.

He wouldn't go to the stand, he'd give a taped deposition like Clinton did.

But we've seen how he handles those, though - https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...n-video-2016-9

"I would say virtually nothing," Trump said when asked about what he did to prepare for the deposition, later adding he did not look at documents beforehand.

[DocSavageFan]

Then you're in favor of the Senate calling for witness and documents. Cool, welcome to the fold.

I am in the favor of the Senate calling witnesses...lots of witnesses.

[Edge-]

I am in the favor of the Senate calling witnesses...lots of witnesses.

Cool, everyone with relevant information to Trump's decision to withhold aide to Ukraine? You know, Bolton, McGahn, Mulvaney, Pence etc?

[TexasRules]

I am in the favor of the Senate calling witnesses...lots of witnesses.

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

[Wyrt]

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

Republicans got all the witnesses they requested other than the Whistleblower because Trump and his minions threatened the Whistleblower.

[Tenlo]

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

Out of curiosity who should be called? Everyone who edge said is obvious there anyone else?

[TexasRules]

Cool, everyone with relevant information to Trump's decision to withhold aide to Ukraine? You know, Bolton, McGahn, Mulvaney, Pence etc?

Oh you are under the impression that democrats and Schiff are somehow running the senate now? How do you guys not understand that the senate will do exactly like the partisan house did and only call their witnesses?

Just take what Schumer said during the Clinton impeachment and apply it here but only to Republicans. You can do that and show that yes, politics is partisan just like the house vote/impeachment. Or you can whine and pretend the same people did not do the same thing. I know McConnell is doing it too, but this time you do not get what you want so....it's different right?

[DocSavageFan]

Cool, everyone with relevant information to Trump's decision to withhold aide to Ukraine? You know, Bolton, McGahn, Mulvaney, Pence etc?

You know it's not going to go that way in the Senate. Unlike in the House, there will be a much more "balanced" perspective represented.

[Fugus]

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

Whatever you say DocSavageFan.

Neglecting the fact that Morrison, Volkur and Sonland were Republican witnesses.

Also, reported for spouting lies and debunked conspiracy theories.

[Levelfive]

Oh you are under the impression that democrats and Schiff are somehow running the senate now? How do you guys not understand that the senate will do exactly like the partisan house did and only call their witnesses?

Just take what Schumer said during the Clinton impeachment and apply it here but only to Republicans. You can do that and show that yes, politics is partisan just like the house vote/impeachment. Or you can whine and pretend the same people did not do the same thing. I know McConnell is doing it too, but this time you do not get what you want so....it's different right?

It's funny how you inadvertently acknowledged that Democrats called relevant witnesses and you know Republicans won't.

[Edge-]

But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called.

Not at all. Schiff isn't a relevant witness. He is not a part of the White House nor did he have any involvement in withholding the Ukrainian aide.

But then it's a "coverup".

Yes, when firsthand fact-witnesses are intentionally kept silent and not called to testify, that's a coverup.

Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that?

A quick google search shows this to be the latest conservative media narrative.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...obe/ar-AAIhBO9

Most likely because it includes the name of the whistleblower as a part of his testimony. Why only him? Because he's the only person that knew the name of the whistleblower. The name that Republicans and conservative media have repeatedly tried to out without success.

Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower?

The article I linked above addresses this -

Trump and another Republicans have accused Schiff — without evidence — of orchestrating the complaint after it was reported that his aide was contacted by the whistleblower for consultation before the whistleblower filed the complaint within the intelligence community.

We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

What's stopping Repbulicans from leaking this, then? It's not as if they haven't leaked beneficial information in the past.

[DocSavageFan]

It will be like when Schiff said the Republicans can call witnesses....only ones he approves. But wait for the hypocritical uproar when he gets called as a witness and none of Schumer's get called. But then it's a "coverup". Even though we don't get the testimony of Atkinson. His testimony has been deemed classified. Why is that? Is it because it provides the link between Schiff and the whistle blower? We won't know, because Schiff won't let it be released......but coverup by Republicans.

The Senate will be relatively fair imo. Bolton will be called....along with a few others that Democrats will likely be unhappy about.

[Edge-]

The Senate will be relatively fair imo. Bolton will be called....along with a few others that Democrats will likely be unhappy about.

Even Graham doesn't want to call Hunter Biden, because he knows it's a waste of time and has nothing to do with events that took place in the year 2019.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...f-hunter-biden

[TexasRules]

Out of curiosity who should be called? Everyone who edge said is obvious there anyone else?

Atkinson. Schiff. The whistle blower. I'd say hunter biden but even his baby mama can not get his financial records somehow. This guy is so shady it's ridiculous.

So let me get this straight....all you democrats are going to whine for people Trump claimed executive privilege. Does that mean if they did testify, the second article of impeachment goes away? Because , under the constitution--that document you guys really dislike-- Trump can exert executive privilege. And they are impeaching him over it, so does that charge of using the constitution go away if your list of witnesses testify?

[DocSavageFan]

Not at all. Schiff isn't a relevant witness. He is not a part of the White House nor did he have any involvement in withholding the Ukrainian aide.

It's indeed quite relevant if this was all contrived.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Graham doesn't want to call Hunter Biden, because he knows it's a waste of time and has nothing to do with events that took place in the year 2019.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...f-hunter-biden

Corruption in plain sight? Kinda looks that way to more than a few.

[Fugus]

The Senate will be relatively fair imo. Bolton will be called....along with a few others that Democrats will likely be unhappy about.

Well, TexasRules.

They have already turned down getting the relevant information from the White House, the State House, and the Department of Defense. They have blocked calling relevant witnesses during the rules hearing. They blocked even a change to ensure that a vote on witnesses would happen. McConnell originally wanted to have it setup where they could even exclude house evidence.

Sorry, but the House stuff was about as fair as you could get. They started closed door, same as Clinton and Nixon and is done for good reason. Both sides had relevant witnesses called. Both sides had equal time questioning them.

Trump even had an accomplice in the leadership with Nunes.

[Edge-]

It's indeed quite relevant if this was all contrived.

This is a repeatedly debunked theory that requires the IG for the intelligence community to be a Democratic operative.

It wasn't true at the start of all of this before investigations went underway. It wasn't true during investigations and testimony that uncovered a raft of evidence supporting the whistleblowers complaints. It wasn't true when the IG interviewed the named first-hand witnesses to corroborate the whistleblowers report.

And it's still not true.

[Belize]

It's funny how you inadvertently acknowledged that Democrats called relevant witnesses and you know Republicans won't.

Sometimes, Trump supporters will accidentally let the truth slip out.

Just very rarely.

[TexasRules]

Not at all. Schiff isn't a relevant witness. He is not a part of the White House nor did he have any involvement in withholding the Ukrainian aide.

You lost me right here. I stopped reading. The guy presided over the impeachment and allegedly had his staff meet with the alleged whistle blower and had staff members who worked with the whistle blower before he filed a charge. He also is suppressing testimony of Atkinson who can testify to that. But he's not important. But a guy who wants to get the United States in to war whenever he can and got fired by Trump is important? Atkinson's testimony has been labeled classified, with most people saying it should not be. It's Schiff who won't let his testimony out. Why are you not arguing for that release? You whine about documents, why are you not whining for the release of that?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, TexasRules.

They have already turned down getting the relevant information from the White House, the State House, and the Department of Defense. They have blocked calling relevant witnesses during the rules hearing. They blocked even a change to ensure that a vote on witnesses would happen. McConnell originally wanted to have it setup where they could even exclude house evidence.

Sorry, but the House stuff was about as fair as you could get. They started closed door, same as Clinton and Nixon and is done for good reason. Both sides had relevant witnesses called. Both sides had equal time questioning them.

Trump even had an accomplice in the leadership with Nunes.

Why are you quoting someone else and bringing me in to your little fantasy?

[Tenlo]

Atkinson. Schiff. The whistle blower. I'd say hunter biden but even his baby mama can not get his financial records somehow. This guy is so shady it's ridiculous.

So let me get this straight....all you democrats are going to whine for people Trump claimed executive privilege. Does that mean if they did testify, the second article of impeachment goes away? Because , under the constitution--that document you guys really dislike-- Trump can exert executive privilege. And they are impeaching him over it, so does that charge of using the constitution go away if your list of witnesses testify?

Ok so you know what sure have Atkinson and Schiff they could have relevant insight. The WB: If there was a way for full anonymity sure however what he said basically doesn't matter anymore it was collaborated. You just want to know that he once held the door open for Clinton and therefore hes corrupt

And what does hunter have anything to do with Trump withholding aid for political dirt? If theres something there get the DoJ to start an investigation. I think the Clinton investigation team is getting bored if saying she's clean for the 50th time mix it up a little