Schiff cites debunked 'Russia collusion' in opening argument at Trump impeachment trial

[Kyle]

Rep. Adam B. Schiff’s opening statement Wednesday at the Senate impeachment trial described President Trump as a serial election “cheat” who must be stopped before the November vote, while the president lobbed insults back at the proceedings from the other side of the Atlantic, calling Mr. Schiff’s crew “major sleaze bags.”

Mr. Schiff, the House Democrats’ lead impeachment manager prosecuting the case, focused his argument on a simple concept: The president attempted to “cheat” in this year’s election just like he did in 2016.

The California Democrat described it as a pattern of cheating that Mr. Trump began by seeking Russia’s assistance in 2016 and was determined to repeat by forcing Ukraine to help him this time.

Adam Schiff cites debunked ‘Russia collusion’ in opening argument at Trump impeachment trial

Rep. Adam B. Schiff’s opening statement Wednesday at the Senate impeachment trial described President Trump as a serial election “cheat” who must be stopped before the November vote, while the president lobbed insults back at the proceedings from the other side of the Atlantic, calling Mr...

www.washingtontimes.com

There is nothing more important than gaining, retaining and wielding power to the left. They will lie, cheat and steal to do it.

It's time to purge the DNC!

 

[transporter]

There is nothing more important than gaining, retaining and wielding power to the left. They will lie, cheat and steal to do it.

Please explain, if you can, McConnell's refusal to consider any evidence or any witnesses during a n impeachment trial?

What would you call that..."abiding by the rule of law"? "Ethical'? "Fair"? "Putting country before party"? Putting country before personality"?

 

[herb749]

Please explain, if you can, McConnell's refusal to consider any evidence or any witnesses during a n impeachment trial?

What would you call that..."abiding by the rule of law"? "Ethical'? "Fair"? "Putting country before party"? Putting country before personality"?

Has he refused to consider the evidence & witnesses that were in the House trial.? If not, you are just blowing smoke.

 

[Ken King]

Please explain, if you can, McConnell's refusal to consider any evidence or any witnesses during a n impeachment trial?

What would you call that..."abiding by the rule of law"? "Ethical'? "Fair"? "Putting country before party"? Putting country before personality"?

Lie. Guess you didn't read Senate Resolution 483, did you? It specifically states, "Upon the conclusion of questioning by the Senate, there shall be 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, followed by deliberation by the Senate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules, on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. The Senate, without any intervening action, motion, or amendment, shall then decide by the yeas and nays whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents."

 

[Kyle]

Please explain, if you can, McConnell's refusal to consider any evidence or any witnesses during a n impeachment trial?

What would you call that..."abiding by the rule of law"? "Ethical'? "Fair"? "Putting country before party"? Putting country before personality"?

I wouldn't consider speculation, conjecture and innuendo to be evidence either.

And as for "abiding by the rule of law" don't' even start. You and the rest of you shitbag, thieving leftists are the most evil crap to come to the surface of the nation in the last 50 years. EVERY last one of you are corrupt, lying, thieving *******s who deserve nothing less than life imprisoned or the guillotine.

However, if you'd all like to begin suiciding yourselves, I, and I'm sure other, would be open to forgiving you all!

 

[SamSpade]

When you have "overwhelming evidence" there is absolutely zero need to provide witnesses or more documents.

When questioned, the answer is something like well we need the docs and witnesses to corroborate our case. No you don't. They have testified already. The docs are in. You HAVE it, remember? Overwhelming evidence? If you HAVE the evidence, then you don't need to ADD to the testimony already given.

You know, it is a little like claiming you have WAY more than enough money to buy something - but when you get to the store, you want a small loan to complete the transaction.

 

[Kyle]

... You know, it is a little like claiming you have WAY more than enough money to buy something - but when you get to the store, you want a small loan to complete the transaction.

In this case they're trying to use a coupon and an IOU.

 

[Hijinx]

I laugh at when he says Trump is a Serial Election cheat.

He only ran for office one time.
A serial cheater would be one who has spent a lifetime running for office.
One who has 20 years or more in the House or Senate.

SCHIFF HAS HAD 10 TERMS. Look in the mirror a-hole.