The truth has a funny way of coming out eventually.

Does that include Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Comey, McCabe,Brennan, Sztrok, Page, etc, etc, etc???

The Hot Pocket brigade is a little cranky because they fell for Nancy Pelosi's drunken gibberish. Mommy's little darlings are going to isolate in the basement for quite a while and act out with their keyboards, spewing nonsense memes like this one.

This impeachment trial concerns the conduct of the Trump Administration, and is not truly an opportunity for the GOP to grandstand about whatever latest conspiracy theory you guys have cooked up about these people. If you wanted to do that, then you can do that at any point in time.

But: in the interests of fairness and balance, sure, I’ll make you a 1-for-1 witness deal on the following:

1. Hunter Biden? Sure, call him to the Senate floor and question him about crack and hookers and hear how ridiculous you sound. I looked into his allegedly corrupt background and all I could find was a paternity suit in Arkansas. His appointment to Burisma was nepotism, probably, but I’ve seen no solid evidence of criminality.

2. HRC? What does she have to do with impeachment? But if you want to haul her back in front of Congress and question her about emails and Benghazi or whatever, be my guest. She did relatively well under oath except for that “what difference does it make?” quote that you guys took out of context and replayed ad nauseum.

3. Comey — Lol? Again nothing to do with impeachment but yeah go ahead and ask him whatever you want about prosecutorial decisions that were well within his discretion.

4. McCabe — Frequent target of Trump’s whining. It appears the Justice Department has finally decided to halt its ineffectual attempts to prosecute him for alleged bias in the Russia probe. But since Trump apparently knows so much about McCabe’s corruption: sure, let’s have Trump question McCabe under oath personally on the Senate floor. That would be fun.

5. Brennan — Another frequent target of Trump. Okay, let’s have Trump personally cross-examine this guy too.

6. Sztrok — I’m sensing a pattern here. You’re obsessed about relitigating the Russia probe that generated tons of indictments and convictions but, in effect, excused Mr. Trump himself of personal misconduct and is already old news by this point. Sure, call this dude to the Senate floor and rip him apart over his affair and text messages.

7. Page — Carter Page? The ex-Trump guy who just filed a lawsuit in federal court today over the Russia dossier? Mmm, when it comes to this one, why don’t we wait and see until that lawsuit has legs before giving him one of the largest platforms on earth upon which to grandstand about anti-Trump conspiracies.

So that’s six folks I’ll give you, and in return, I demand the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump himself.

I'll take Ciaramella, and he can explain his first whistleblower complaint attempt (here's a preview - he attempted to manufacture evidence, and the inspector general rejected the complaint because of it).

That little nugget was buried in the Mueller report..... It turns out, Mueller was great - for the Republicans.

oh, puh-leeeeze...spare me thy bullshit. This all goes to what you Democrats have been conspiring to do since 2015-2016...which is to control all 3 branches of gov't.
1.Hunter Biden will give us Joe the Corrupt,

2.Hillary bought and paid for the dossier which was one of the first attempts to smear the President,

3.Comey covered for Hillary and signed off on the FISA warrants,

4.McCabe was part of the Strozk-Page insurance policy,

5.Brennan has lied, under oath, numerous times about the FISA warrant and spying on Americans before Congress
.
6.Carter Page??? Are you really that obtuse to not know that I am speaking of Lisa Page???

Bolton??????? The same asshat who gave us WMD's in Iraq?? The same Bolton that the left has pilloried for years???

Mulvaney?? Because why? Because he said "quid pro quo"? NEWSFLASH: Every president since Washington has utilized "quid pro quo": It is what makes the world go 'round.

Trump?? Trump would hand you yur ass on a silver platter

Carter Page, Lisa Page: since I responded with the wrong “Page,” whatever, you get a freebie and can call both of them.

That’s the difference between you guys and me. I am not afraid of what these folks might say under oath. Y’all are.

No one is afraid of the truth except Schiff, et al.
Why don't you or the rest of your cabal ever respond with an actual crime that President committed?? Just ONE (1).

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

I’ll give you two! Article I and Article II.

You saying these are not “actual crimes” does not make it so.

The acts described herein are indeed “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the House has determined pursuant to Art. II Sec. IV of the U.S. Constitution.

No. Again...No. Just because you are closing your eyes and wishing really, really hard does not make it so.

Obstruction is a joke. How can Trump obstruct Congress when the appropriate legal appeal was filed for every subpoena they issued? Hell, I thought you guys loved taking things to court! Oh wait, not when... orange man bad.

As far as abuse of power, call all the witnesses and let's get to the bottom of it. Your side has abused power to a far, far greater degree than Trump ever could have. Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Holder; let's get them all into the senate for some testimony!

I'm absolutely not afraid of what any witness that either side would call, would say under oath. It's the Dems who have the smoking guns to hide. The smoking guns of an impeachment fraud, and a failed three year long coup attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election. Let both sides call all the witnesses they want. We've got time.

I disagree with your conclusions, but I’m willing to make common cause with anyone interested in getting to the truth of this matter.

This discussion thread shows that there is profound disagreement in this country about what actually happened in Ukraine and which side is in the wrong.

Without drilling down on these issues, both sides are just going to spin farther into their alternate realities, dividing the country even further.

This is more dangerous to our country as a whole than the temporary embarrassment of one party or the other.

At least with the Clinton impeachment, the country got to learn that Clinton had an Oval Office BJ, and lied about it, but then concluded it wasn’t a big enough deal to remove him from office.

That impeachment was considered divisive at the time, but from the standpoint of today, I think it looks tame as hell in comparison

The whole shooting match is going to be over in 36 hours or less. No witnesses, bi-partisan acquittal and while the rest of the country will be watching the Super Bowl, you and the MSNBC/CNN tin foil hat crowd will be playing what if...
Pelosi will be passed out in a vodka induced stupor. It will be her best moment in the past 6 months.

Nah. Pelosi's already looking three steps ahead, including calling John Bolton to testify in front of the House as my OP meme references. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-nancy-pelosi-hints-house-action-trump-senate/story?id=68641973

In the real world, an unfair trial does not result in exoneration of the Defendant but instead results in declaration of a mistrial and a do-over.

So why the hell would Democrats take this lying down? An unfair acquittal in Impeachment will be no different.

I have run across some delusional ignoramus clowns in my life, but you are a prize winning Grand Champion in that category. A flaming idiot, a danger to yourself and others. OMG.

I have run across some right-wingers who are only any good at retorting with ad-hominems, and...

Yeah you’re basically no different from them

You come to that conclusion because you have no listening or critical thinking skills.
Just delusions and ignorance.
And I know the difference between Lisa Page and Carter Page and didn't embarrass myself like you did, you flaming idiot.

You said “Page” and I picked the first one that appeared in a Google search in conjunction with “Trump,” and it turns out it was not the one you had in mind. It’s not important.

But as I said: go ahead, call both of them to the stand if you think it will help your case.

I didn't say Page, merryprankster did.
And if you have to Google that name in context to relationship to Trump, be it Lisa Page or Carter Page... you are a flaming idiot, a delusional ignoramus who should be quiet because your opinion is meaningless because of your uncommon ignorance. You are a danger to yourself and others.

I knew Carter Page, I had not heard of Lisa Page.

I saw her name in conjunction with Strzok and just assumed that he or she didn't mean that Page since presumably any testimony she could offer would just be cumulative with that of Strzok.

Carter Page just filed a lawsuit today about this FISA stuff so I assumed they meant him.

But I will freely admit I am not as steeped in right-wing conspiracies as you guys.

Right wing conspiracies?
It's called "the news" and it's based on knowing facts, like names, dates, places, you flaming idiot. Not Googling words in the middle of a discussion and letting some half baked opinion fly.
Anyone with even a casual working knowledge of politics knew merryprankster was referring to Strzok's girlfriend/accomplice, so maybe you should just shut the f**k up because you have embarrassed yourself. But of course, you won't because you actually are a prize winning delusional ignoramus.

Was the FBI altering Carter Page's email to lie to the FISA court so they could spy on a presidential candidates team a rightwing conspiracy?

Kinda sounds like trying to interfere in a presidential election to me.

A do over after a mistrail would depend whether the case was demised with prejudice. In the case of prosecutorial misconduct you can get barred for taking a second bite at the apple. In this case, if you actually want basic fairness, the impeachment should be dismissed an the House should go through the steps to do it right the next time.

He absolutely meant Lisa Page, Strzok's girlfriend... not Carter Page who got hosed by a corrupt FISA court, you flaming idiot.

Yes , too dumb to argue with .

Good grief KF... and I thought I was long-winded!

Trump literally released the transcript of the phone call. I'd hardly call that a coverup.

Yep... this is the one! And it's plenty bad all on its own.

The problem is that evidence collected in the House suggested that this call was just one data point in a months-long pressure campaign to get Ukraine to open a baseless investigation on Biden's son.

"Biden's son"... telling phrase, that

And that's exactly why we're here!

Meanwhile, Biden did stop the prosecution. By threating to stop aid, how ironic! Who just today called for Biden to be investigated.

But any corruption is moot if it's done by someone running for prez, I guess.

All I see is Trump heard about Hunter Biden working for a Ukrainian oil company that was being investigated and that Joe got the prosecutor working the case fired. That's corruption clear as day on the part of Joe Biden. The Democrats can't prove motive, they can only take guesses at what they think is the motive which isn't going to hold up on trial.

Biden was assigned to threaten to fire the old Ukrainian prosecutor because he *wasn’t* properly investigating corruption.

That was an example of the proper use of the threat of withholding foreign aid to achieve a beneficial purpose.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! The fact is that Papa Biden used his power to thwart the investigations into Burisma, which would have exposed his son and Kerry's son, and thus Joe Biden's corruption.

1. If the old prosecutor wasn't doing a good enough job finding corruption, then how come the new prosecutor cleared Burisma? Assuming the new guy wasn't corrupt at all, he should've found that corruption Joe knew existed and done his job.
2. If Biden was assigned to threaten to fire the old prosecutor, why did he not let Obama know his son worked at Burisma? That was a clear conflict of interest and both Obama and Biden should have realized that. The negotiation should have been led by Obama himself or another lackey to avoid that conflict of interest.
3. So Trump can't have corruption investigated, but Obama can? Because based on what you're describing, that's exactly what Trump did. If you're going to complain about what Trump did, then you have to hold Obama to the same standard lest you be a hypocrite.

But we already have reason to believe Biden had his motives. If you believe the Bidens were completely innocent, let's call them to testify and clear everything up. After all, they have nothing to hide, right?

Trump can’t ask a foreign government to initiate a corruption investigation against a *specific individual* on the basis of little or no evidence. Particularly when it’s the son of a political opponent.

Why is that a bad idea, you might ask?

Because now half the country thinks they’re both corrupt, when there still hasn’t been any solid evidence shown of that.

Not to mention the impact it has had on the Democratic primaries and is likely to have if Biden wins.

It’s election interference plain and simple.

By contrast: Obama was handed solid evidence of the Trump campaign corresponding with Russians in the months before the ‘16 election. And what did he do with that information? He kept it under wraps, even while HRC was being pummeled over emails.

Why? Because Obama did not want to “interfere in an election.”

But yes: I'm happy to bring both Bidens to the stand and clear it up. Of all the Democrats being mentioned here, there's the strongest case for calling them. Even though this trial is not truly about them.

If there is reason to investigate a company for wrongdoing, then let that investigation commence. Crony corporations should be investigated when they do shady things, even if the daddy of one of the executives happens to be Joe Biden. I would expect the same thing if it was Trump and one of his kids in the same situation. I don't care if Joe is running for office, that does not grant you immunity from an investigation. If Joe and Hunter don't like the fact that Americans believe they did something wrong, then let the investigation commence and clear them.

The 2016 Trump-Russia collusion? Some Russians said they had dirt on Hillary, campaign officials heard them out, they decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and that was the end of it. If it was such a big deal, let the American people know about it, we deserve to know.

They just keep lying to you and you don't care .