I was listening yesterday to the trial. Once again, the presidents defense team went into great detail of the lies brought on by Schiff and Nadler. This isn't rocket science. It should be over but I am hearing that new witnesses are probably going to be called. With this said I have been reading that the Republicans have ALWAYS been open to calling witnesses (despite what the MSM has been saying) as long as they get the witnesses they want. Basically they want to hear from Schiff, the POS Non-Whistleblower, and both Bidens. Also, there should be some Biden family members like Joe's sister, brother and another son along with Hunter's business partners. If we do get witnesses look to see this whole trial open up to a much greater clown show.

I am looking forward to hearing the senator's questions today.

I was listening yesterday to the trial. Once again, the presidents defense team went into great detail of the lies brought on by Schiff and Nadler. This isn't rocket science. It should be over but I am hearing that new witnesses are probably going to be called. With this said I have been reading that the Republicans have ALWAYS been open to calling witnesses (despite what the MSM has been saying) as long as they get the witnesses they want. Basically they want to hear from Schiff, the POS Non-Whistleblower, and both Bidens. Also, there should be some Biden family members like Joe's sister, brother and another son along with Hunter's business partners. If we do get witnesses look to see this whole trial open up to a much greater clown show.

I am looking forward to hearing the senator's questions today.

Correct.  I think EEF sees/hears what he wants to see/hear. 

Never mind there is the IG's testimony transcript taken in the "bunker in the basement" that still hasn't been released to the Republicans/Trump's team, and was not part of the Senate trial.

Why not?  What could there be in that deposition that Schiff doesn't want anyone to hear? 

Perhaps the facts that lead the IG to conclude the complaint by the informant was not only inconsistent with the investigation's facts, but it may also detail why the IG judged the informant to have political bias -- something that factored into why the IG did not treat the complaint as 100% credible?

Perhaps the transcript includes the informant's account of how he contacted Schiff's staff (maybe even Schiff himself), while Schiff is still maintaining he has no idea who the informant is.   

When there's a hidden record of the FIRST PERSON to have received and investigated the complaint that started this whole impeachment still being kept away from EVERYBODY involved, it makes you wonder.  If it was BAD for Trump, I guarantee it would have been front and center last week.  We can only assume it's bad for Schiff's case.

I'm really interested in how the next 2 days or so will go, particularly what doors are opened and what they will reveal. 

And is it just me, or every time I see Schiff or Nadler, I just want to punch them right in the teef.  And it's not because of these proceedings. Schiff just looks like a total oogly eyed weasel.

Yeah, I want to poke him in the googly eyes! 

I'm really interested in how the next 2 days or so will go, particularly what doors are opened and what they will reveal. 

And is it just me, or every time I see Schiff or Nadler, I just want to punch them right in the teef.  And it's not because of these proceedings. Schiff just looks like a total oogly eyed weasel.

I want to know who is the missing witness.  Schiff mentioned 18 witness,but only 17 by name.  Was it a typo?

While I am not super familiar with the Senate's standard of evidence/proof/care in trying impeachment, I saw many posts from liberals to the effect of why are Republicans unable to provide evidence that Trump is innocent.  Isn't the Constitution for ALL Americans?  Think some people only use parts of it when it serves their agenda and trample on it when it gets in their way.  Pesky constitution. . . 

I'm waiting for more links on Schiff to other high profile events that were overcome by impeachment. . . :hmm: #noteverythingisaconspiracy #dammittinfoiliscontagious

The 70+ hours of closed sessions is another.

So a woman who claims Trump taped her in the 90s wants a DNA sample from him so they can test it on some jizz on a dress.


So she kept the dress for 30 years hoping 1 day a DNA test would be able to prove he jizzed on her.

Distraction from impeachment trial falling apart, so the dnc needs something else to try and swing the election. Que the racism accusations next.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: So you don't feel like a victim?

E. JEAN CARROLL: I was not thrown on the ground and ravished. Which, the word "rape" carries so many sexual connotations. This was not sexual. It just, it hurt.

ANDERSON COOPER: I think most people think of rape as a violent assault. It is not sexual--

E. JEAN CARROLL: I think most people think of rape as being sexy.

ANDERSON COOPER: Let's take a short break.

E. JEAN CARROLL: Think of the fantasies.

ANDERSON COOPER: We're going to take a short break. If you could stick around we can talk more.

E. JEAN CARROLL: You're fascinating to talk to.   

So a woman who claims Trump taped her in the 90s wants a DNA sample from him so they can test it on some jizz on a dress.


So she kept the dress for 30 years hoping 1 day a DNA test would be able to prove he jizzed on her.

Distraction from impeachment trial falling apart, so the dnc needs something else to try and swing the election. Que the racism accusations next.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski came out Friday against calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, all but assuring the Senate will move to wrap up proceedings with a likely acquittal in a matter of days, if not hours.

“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” said Murkowski, R-Alaska, a key moderate senator who has been closely watched on the witness question.

The announcement came after Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who also had been on the fence on the issue, announced late Thursday that he would not support additional witnesses in Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan” trial.

Right now, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah are the only GOP senators to signal support for witnesses. Presuming Democrats vote as a bloc and no other Republicans defect, this would leave the pro-witness side with just 49 votes.

You have to learn to read.

I said the MANGERS (Schiff, Nadler, etc) are lying, not the witnesses.  The witness statements presented by the House Managers are cherry-picked, out-of-context and often contradicted in later testimony.  They presented the narrative-friendly soundbites and ignored the rest.

The statements used were false -- that doesn't mean the statements were lies.  They were presented to the Senate in a dishonest manner.

You only have to listen to the 2 hour opening statement from Saturday to understand.  I challenge you to watch.  If you burst into flames, I'll pay for your dry cleaning.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6-opening-defense-arguments

The prosecution and defense are both cherry picking, that's what they do. If you want to call that lying then they are both lying.

Just watched the Senate vote on whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial.

Yes:  49

No:  51

Bolton is now a non-issue, with the obvious caveat that the Dems will now be crying the trial was "unfair" and "rigged", and "THAT ONE WITNESS"  would have convicted Trump.   

Next vote will be on acquittal which is another "majority wins" vote.  If (when) that passes, the trial is done.  if it fails, then they'll vote on conviction -- a "Super Majority (2/3)" vote, which is guaranteed to fail.

I would say 1 side cherry picks more than the other.  But this is why I rely on my own information which showed this is a witch hunt and holds no merit.

Didnt the fake news and DNC say it's unethical to call for an investigation into a political candidate.  Yet we have 3 opposing candidates who are going to vote on another political candidate.