House GOP Release List of Witnesses For Impeachment Hearings

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

And the best part..... Schiff has a law degree !! 🤣 🪀 🤣

Congressman Schiff is a former Prosecutor. Attorney Greg Jarrett (FoxNews) says Schiff's favorite operating venue was the "Grand Jury" setting. Jarrett says Schiff is running this impeachment process very similar to how grand juries operate.

President Trump's suggested list of GOP Witnesses:

I recommend that Nervous Nancy Pelosi (who backed up Schiff’s lie), Shifty Adam Schiff, Sleepy Joe Biden, the Whistleblower (who miraculously disappeared after I released the transcript of the call), the 2nd Whistleblower (who also disappeared), & the I.G., be part of the list!

twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Nancy Pelosi is asking for her Doctor to be "present" at any and all future hearings !! 😃

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Nancy Pelosi is asking for her Doctor to be "present" at any and all future hearings !! 😃

The SQUAD had a private meeting with Nancy. Four hours later, she called for Impeachment Inquiries to begin.

It's strange how QUIET Nancy has been over the past month. Maybe things will heat up on Tuesday, when Congress returns from it's 12 day vacation.

a reply to: carewemust

"They've" also been "citing" Constitutional quotes lately too and remember only a few short months ago Pelsoi was strenuously
saying "impeachment" was dangerous !! All part of the Democrat Red Herring agenda 😃

When it is decided that Schiff is a liar and a fraud, will everything else that he has "prosecuted" in the past be thrown out of court?

I doubt it but one can hope...

originally posted by: carewemust
Congressman: "Mr Eric Ciaramella when is the first time you met with Adam Schiff or his staff?"

There fixed it for you.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Of course I dont. What an absurd question to ask. As if my saying no I do not have that proves something.
I guess we both cross that bridge together huh?

a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

Not even the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

Not even the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella?

Putting it in quotes doesn’t change the fact that the individual in question filed a valid complaint, the ICIG found it credible and passed it on to the House Intelligence Committee ... all as required by Federal law.

That complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, and sustained by the President’s own words and the words of the White House Staff.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you suppose Eric Ciaramella is a valid witness?

The SCOTUS will eventually get involved and they will never leave DC to campaign.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Does one’s political party make one an invalid witness?

Nope.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Does one’s political party make one an invalid witness?

Nope.

Just remember you said that when the Democrats reject Republican witnesses left and right next week. It's all good though because this sham has to go through the Senate with a 2/3 super-majority vote to convict President Trump. I don't think the Republican controlled Senate will be amused with the shenanigans being pulled by the Democrats. The chance of President Trumps conviction is pretty much zero. So, have fun with your fantasies for now, we will be swimming in your tears once again soon. In the meantime the wall will continue to be built, the economy will continue to chug along at an extremely impressive pace, the unemployment level will continue its record shattering lowest levels....ever and Donald J. Trump will be your President for the next five years.

Have a wonderful day!

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Does one’s political party make one an invalid witness?

Nope.

Just remember you said that when the Democrats reject Republican witnesses left and right next week. It's all good though because this sham has to go through the Senate with a 2/3 super-majority vote to convict President Trump. I don't think the Republican controlled Senate will be amused with the shenanigans being pulled by the Democrats. The chance of President Trumps conviction is pretty much zero. So, have fun with your fantasies for now, we will be swimming in your tears once again soon. In the meantime the wall will continue to be built, the economy will continue to chug along at an extremely impressive pace, the unemployment level will continue its record shattering lowest levels....ever and Donald J. Trump will be your President for the next five years.

Have a wonderful day!

You’re mixing contexts and you know it. However, I’ll be glad to say that the current impeachment action by the Dems is dumb. I’ve been saying that. It is not unconstitutional nor out of line with the Rules of the House though.

McConnell has basically said that the Senate will acquit Trump no matter what. You seem to be against what the Dems are doing in the House (which you claim is partisan) but just fine with what the Republicans say they’re going to do in the Senate (which is equally partisan.)

Your trumpeting is typical. Unemployment is on the same trend line it’s been on for six years or so. Same with the economy.

Donald Trump may be President 2021-2024, and he may not, at this point I’d give it about a 50% chance, based on history.

If he isn’t, ardent Trump supporters will be here to tell us how he was cheated by someone, somewhere for something.

That we can count on 100%

a reply to: Gryphon66

What I said was "I don't think the Republican controlled Senate will be amused with the shenanigans being pulled by the Democrats." and that President Trump being convicted is almost zero. NOT zero.

I think if the house feels there needs to be an investigation then so be it. Like you, I don't agree with the way the Dems are going about the impeachment in a partisan way and should have taken the way of precedent with a bipartisan investigation.

Either way in the end it is my personal opinion that President Trump will be your president for the next five years whether you like it or not (provided you are an American citizen). Cheers!

a reply to: Alien Abduct

... and what I said was that if it’s a partisan act for the House it’s a partisan act for the Senate to say “he’s not guilty” before they see the evidence (which has been done.)

I can’t see anyone else that the Republicans think they could hold the WH with other than Trump.

Thanks for giving me your opinion! Mine is ... we will see. Best.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

Not even the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella?

Senator Graham says if the WhistleBlower (Ciaramella) doesn't testify, Impeachment is Dead On Arrival at the Senate.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

Not even the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella?

Putting it in quotes doesn’t change the fact that the individual in question filed a valid complaint, the ICIG found it credible and passed it on to the House Intelligence Committee ... all as required by Federal law.

That complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, and sustained by the President’s own words and the words of the White House Staff.

Funny people try to rewrite history. The reality was his complaint was dismissed. This is why our whistleblower contacts congress in the first place. Also how this was leaked to the press. the more you look at this the more it looks like this was because the Mueller report failed. There is tons of details the press are just leaving out .

For example, the funds were released do to senator rob portman calling the president. He is the one that told the president we need to release the funds. He is also the one that stated Trump held those funds in an attempt to get support from Europe.