[Pants-of-dog]

I find it amusing that @BigSteve insulted himself.

Anyway, it appears that some Republican senators have decided they would support introducing more witnesses.

[jimjam]

I see that Impeached President Trump has recruited All Star bottom feeders Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to join his battalion of 2 or 3 hundred lawyers to toss sand into the wheels of justice and defend his perfect presidency. Rumor has it that Sylvester Stallone ,in full Rocky regalia ,will soon be added to the All Star cast to aid this poor man who never has done anything even slightly wrong. No doubt Donald's "base" will be highly entertained.

[jimjam]

Of course, the takeaway from your post is that you were completely unable to refute mine and, in realizing that, you recognized your own hypocrisy...

I could not agree more. opps …… time for the afternoon bowel movement. Might be my "takeaway" from your post. Or would that be "giveaway" . Thanks Large Guy for another enlightening exchange.

[BigSteve]

I find it amusing that @BigSteve insulted himself.

I find it amusing that you don't have a fucking clue.

Whoops ANGER!!

LOL!

Anyway, it appears that some Republican senators have decided they would support introducing more witnesses.

I would LOVE to see more witnesses. Of course, they're probably not the witnesses that the left would like to see, but who cares what they want? After all, the way they conducted the impeachment hearings was all anyone would need to conclude that democrats aren't at all interested in fairness...

[late]

I would LOVE to see more witnesses.

Delay, distract, deny... Moscow Rules.

Calling witnesses that have no bearing on the case is using your Russian distraction technique, comrade.

[Pants-of-dog]

I find it amusing that you don't have a fucking clue.

Whoops ANGER!!

LOL!

I know what “falls on deaf ears” means. You apparently do not.

I would LOVE to see more witnesses.

Such as who?

Of course, they're probably not the witnesses that the left would like to see, but who cares what they want? After all, the way they conducted the impeachment hearings was all anyone would need to conclude that democrats aren't at all interested in fairness...

Ad hominem. Ignored.

[BigSteve]

Delay, distract, deny... Moscow Rules.

Calling witnesses that have no bearing on the case is using your Russian distraction technique, comrade.

Oh, they would most certainly have a bearing on the case...

[BigSteve]

Such as who?

Eric Ciaramella

Adam Schiff

Sean Misko

Joe Biden

Hunter Biden

Barack Obama

[Pants-of-dog]

Eric Ciaramella

Adam Schiff

Sean Misko

Joe Biden

Hunter Biden

Barack Obama

And what can these people tell us about Trump’s crimes?

[late]

Oh, they would most certainly have a bearing on the case...

You do love empty assertions.

A variety of witnesses have made it painfully clear that Trump wanted fiction. Same way you do, for the same reasons.

[BigSteve]

And what can these people tell us about Trump’s crimes?

Well, that's why we would call them as witnesses. To find out what they know and when they knew it.

And, as much as you wish it was otherwise, there are no crimes. There are "alleged" crimes and, considering the source of those charges, they're pretty meaningless...

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, that's why we would call them as witnesses. To find out what they know and when they knew it.

And, as much as you wish it was otherwise, there are no crimes. There are "alleged" crimes and, considering the source of those charges, they're pretty meaningless...

Then why not call up me? You could find out what I know and when I knew it. Would that help?

[BigSteve]

Then why not call up me? You could find out what I know and when I knew it. Would that help?

I don't believe your name has popped up in this whole charade as being someone who would be of any importance to this case...

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't believe your name has popped up in this whole charade as being someone who would be of any importance to this case...

Exactly.

So randomly asking people to come up and tell us what they know makes no sense.

Instead, you would want people that have some conncetion to the proceedings.

Now, can you explain the connections that these people have with Trump’s crimes?

[jimjam]

There are "alleged" crimes and, considering the source of those charges, they're pretty meaningless...

I am really sick of hearing this unmitigated bullshit from Impeached President Trump and his battalion of 243 lawyers. In 1911 the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire killed about 145 young women who were locked into the fire by locked (from the outside) doors. The owners of the sweat shop were found "innocent" because, at the time, there were no laws on the books outlawing caging workers into your sweatshop. Below pic shows crumpled bodies of dead workers who jumped 8 or 9 stories onto the cement. No "crime" here …… . Most likely this is the "great" America that the Donald Gang refers to over and over.

[BigSteve]

Exactly.

So randomly asking people to come up and tell us what they know makes no sense.

Which is why you would be ignored...

Instead, you would want people that have some conncetion to the proceedings.

Among others, yes, because the impeachment proceedings were not conducted in a fair and impartial manner. It's time for Republicans to find out why...

Now, can you explain the connections that these people have with Trump’s crimes?

There are no crimes. There are alleged crimes. And, again, considering the source of the charges, they're hollow and meaningless...

[BigSteve]

I am really sick of hearing this unmitigated bullshit from Impeached President Trump and his battalion of 243 lawyers. In 1911 the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire killed about 145 young women who were locked into the fire by locked (from the outside) doors. The owners of the sweat shop were found "innocent" because, at the time, there were no laws on the books outlawing caging workers into your sweatshop. Below pic shows crumpled bodies of dead workers who jumped 8 or 9 stories onto the cement. No "crime" here …… . Most likely this is the "great" America that the Donald Gang refers to over and over.

That's actually not why they were found not guilty.

Do you even read what you're going to post? If their were no laws prohibiting what they did, how is it they were charged under those non-existent laws?

No, again, that's not why they were found not guilty. Furthermore, the owners were later found guilty of wrongful death in a subsequent trial. Odd you failed to mention that.

Then again, not so much.

Your impressive stretch to attempt to compare the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to the ridiculous charges against Trump is stupid...

[late]

Your impressive stretch to attempt to compare the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to the ridiculous charges against Trump is stupid...

Not really, in any case, it's a matter of High Crimes.

[BigSteve]

That wasn't what he was doing..

Sure it was...

[Pants-of-dog]

Which is why you would be ignored...

Among others, yes, because the impeachment proceedings were not conducted in a fair and impartial manner. It's time for Republicans to find out why...

There are no crimes. There are alleged crimes. And, again, considering the source of the charges, they're hollow and meaningless...

As far as I can tell, you have no clue why you want these people to be witnesses.

Did you just pull these names off some media pundit's website?

Take Eric Ciaramella, for example. Can he actually help the Senate understand what Trump did, or do you just want to target potential whistleblowers?