“We’ve Heard From Enough Witnesses”: Democrats Oppose Calling Witnesses While Schumer Leaves It To The House Managers

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced yesterday that he would leave the question of whether to call witnesses to the House managers to decide. In the meantime, various Democratic senators said that there is no need for witnesses despite the House repeatedly acknowledging that it does not know critical facts related to Donald Trump’s state of mind. The position of Schumer and the Democrats is in strikingly contrast to their positions in the last two impeachments.

Schumer has stated that the question of whether witnesses will be called is up to the House managers: “We let the managers make the decisions and I try to implement them.”

That is not the position taken by Schumer 21 year ago when he and the Democrats opposed hearing from witnesses. They refused to leave it up the House managers. Indeed, they did not want to have a trial at all and demanded dismissal and then opposed calling witnesses despite the demand of House managers. Ultimately, they allowed a few depositions and no live testimony.  In the first Trump impeachment, no witnesses were called.  Democrats wanted some witnesses but opposed others demanded by the defense.  They did not leave the question to the House managers.

What is striking this time is that there was literally no record in the House. None. There was no hearing, no investigation. Just a snap impeachment. As we have discussed, the House could have held days of hearings and still impeached Trump before leaving the White House on January 20th. (A Senate trial before Trump left office was not an option). They refused. Then four weeks passed where they could have called key witnesses to answer  myriad of questions, they again refused and decided to go forward without such direct evidence.

At the trial, both the House and the defense highlighted critical questions that have remained unanswered due to the lack of such testimony.  Yet, the Democratic senators do not want to hear witnesses anymore than the House. This is not because of prudential objections to the use of a snap impeachment. They have indicated that they do not need such answers to pronounce guilt.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she heard from enough people through “interviews and video presentation.” Of course, she did not hear a single line of sworn testimony because there is no such testimony despite the availability of direct testimony from witnesses who have already given public statements. Yet, she declared “I feel like we’ve heard from enough witnesses.”

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said “I think the case has been made. I don’t know what witnesses would add.”  That may be true since no one has even deposed a witness. This is a case of ignorance being bliss when it comes to a desire for conviction.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tried a different tact and said that the accused has the burden.  She said Trump could come and “give his explanation of the day,” but “otherwise, it feels like to me we’re done.”

Of course, the burden is on the House and they presented an entirely circumstantial case on Trump’s state of mind despite a dozen witnesses who could confirm what he said and did in these critical hours. Indeed, the Senate did not even see confirmation on details whether Trump delayed deployment of National Guard or whether the fault of the delay rests equally or more with others, including Congress, on the preparation for and response to the protest and later riot.

The trial therefore will remain circumstantial by design and popular demand.

273 thoughts on ““We’ve Heard From Enough Witnesses”: Democrats Oppose Calling Witnesses While Schumer Leaves It To The House Managers”

  1. Now, who prosecutes the democrats for bizarrely and ridiculously attempting a coup d’etat post facto, for violating the clear meaning of the law and Constitution, for abuse of power, for usurpation of power?

    Who impeaches all those who committed egregious and treasonous crimes of high office?

    America is lawless.

  2. 146 Cops Injured.  But No One’s Responsible!

    Neither Trump Nor Defense Accounted For His Time During Riots

    The pure savagery of the mob that rampaged through the Capitol that day was breathtaking, as cataloged by the injuries inflicted on those who tried to guard the nation’s elected lawmakers. One police officer lost an eye, another the tip of his finger. Still another was shocked so many times with a Taser gun that he had a heart attack.

    They suffered cracked ribs, two smashed spinal disks and multiple concussions. At least 81 members of the Capitol force and 65 members of the Metropolitan Police Department were injured, not even counting the officer killed that day or two others who later died by suicide. Some officers described it as worse than when they served in combat in Iraq.

    And through it all, President Donald J. Trump served as the inspiration if not the catalyst. Even as he addressed a rally beforehand, supporters could be heard on the video responding to him by shouting, “Take the Capitol!” Then they talked about calling the president at the White House to report on what they had done. And at least one of his supporters read over a bullhorn one of the president’s angry tweets to charge up the crowd.

    If nothing else, the Senate impeachment trial has served at least one purpose: It stitched together the most comprehensive and chilling account to date of last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol, shedding light on the biggest explosion of violence in the seat of Congress in two centuries. In the new details it revealed and the methodical, minute-by-minute assembly of known facts it presented, the trial proved revelatory for many Americans — and even for some who lived through the events.

    Perhaps the most searing new details were audio and video recordings from other police officers trying — and failing — to protect the Capitol. The radio communication became increasingly frantic, with one officer saying against a din in the background: “We have been outflanked and we’ve lost the line.” Another said: “They’re throwing metal poles at us.” They were attacked with bear spray and some sort of fireworks. One officer was dragged down a set of stairs; another was beaten after falling to the ground.

    Managers documented as well the sheer scale of the desecration of the building itself. One worker had to clean feces off a wall. Another had to wipe up blood. And as with a revolution in a far-off country, it was the sounds of that day that some remembered most vividly: the pounding on the door of the building, the crash as glass was smashed, the whispers of staff aides hiding from the crowd. “The sound of those window panes popping, I won’t forget that sound,” one congressional aide was quoted saying in audio.

    How much Mr. Trump was to blame for the onslaught documented in such painful detail was left to the Senate to decide. The defense team decried the House managers prosecuting the case for inflaming the senator-jurors with “manipulated video” that it argued proved only that the rioters committed crimes, not that the former president did.

    The Trump camp has never provided a definitive and official account of the former president’s knowledge or actions during the attack. But advisers speaking on the condition of anonymity have told reporters that he was initially pleased, not disturbed, that his supporters had disrupted the election count and that he never reached out to Vice President Mike Pence to check on his safety even after Mr. Pence was evacuated from the Senate chamber.

    But what really struck some senators, particularly the handful of Republicans open to conviction, is what Mr. Trump did next — or what he did not do. Despite pleas from Mr. McCarthy, other allies, key aides and his daughter Ivanka Trump, the president was still more focused on pressing his effort to block the election than coming to the aid of his vice president and Congress.

    Edited From:  “One Legacy Of Impeachment: The Most Complete Account So Far Of January 6”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Typical one way asshat. You seem to ignore the year of burn loot murder in the name of left wing god-ism. Supported and encouraged by demoratz on huge scale . To include the insanity & mayhem against supreme court justice pics…AT THE CAPITOL. But it’s ok to burn loot and murder if it supports your political sickness…right got that. Hypocrite much there bruh ?.

      1. “You seem to ignore the year of burn loot murder . . .”

        To the political aristocracy, a peasant’s property and life are dispensable. That’s been the theme during the year of destructive Covid lockdowns and shut downs.

  3. Nothing defines the spineless country club Republicans so much as two-faced, mean-girl Romney. He begged for Trump’s endorsement. Got it. Then stabbed him in the back repeatedly.

    Yet it would not surprise me if he and Mitch were asking for Trump’s endorsement again next time they are up. They are that hollow and that shameless. And that soulless.

    1. How dare you attack Dilecto and McTurtle! They, along with Beijing Biden and the Corporate-Socialist Sponsers know what’s best for America and Americans.

  4. TRUMP 2
    DIMS 0

    Tends to happen when you bring the gang that can’t shoot straight to a gun fight – twice. Live to fight another day!

      1. The dimocrats stole the election in furtherance of their desire to destroy the U.S. Constitution, which has been on display, most recently, for the past week.

        The dimocrats never had anything approaching a constitutional basis; a basis in law.

        The dimocrats have criminally seized power and taken the law into their own hands.

        At some point, the enemy will have awakened a sleeping giant – woe shall be unto them.

      2. Anon– “Don’t tell mespo about the election. He’s a delicate rose.”

        He already knows the election was stolen by illegal acts common in a Banana Republic.

          1. The ilk of you are like legions of parasites who desire, nay, physically need “free stuff” from other people’s money.

            You are an embarrassment to yourselves.

            You adhere to the Communist Manifesto – you steal elections and you steal other people’s money.

            Start a business. Get a job. Take the —- care of yourselves and stop demanding alms from the wallets of other people.

            Stop stealing and start working.

            You want healthcare? Go buy a —-ing policy. You want retirement income? Go buy a —-ing plan. You want affirmative action? Go get good grades and make yourselves valuable/marketable.

            Oh, by the way, that’s what the Constitution allows.

            That’s what the Constitution allows, that’s the whole of what the Constitution allows and that is nothing but what the Constitution allows – the freedom to take care of yourselves.

    1. Largest and most bipartisan vote for conviction of all presidential impeachment trial. Trump wasn’t convicted by a supermajority, but he didn’t win. He’s a loser.

      1. Wait.

        Why stop now?

        The dimocrats/liberals can impeach anyone and everyone they like – just like they have nullified and modified the Constitution without a legal or constitutional basis for 160 years.

        1. He was impeached while in office for acts he took while in office, and McConnell had put the Senate on recess and refused to recall them in time to start the trial before Biden was inaugurated.

          Only a childish person calls Democrats “dimocrats.”

      2. Acquittal = Win, little Anonymouse.

        Not that you’ve ever personally experienced what it’s like to actually win something as a result of hard work. As opposed to the worthless participation trophies and ribbons you’ve received for showing up to practice occasionally.

        But Schumer’s hypocrisy by invoking Washington’s farewell address in his pathetic small minded speech after Trump was acquitted, was beyond the pale.

        Yet, at the same time Schumer inadvertently provided a perfect example of this warning about the dangers of political parties given by Washington during his address.

        “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty”.

        1. It was a bipartisan vote. Of all the Presidents who’ve been impeached, Trump is the only President who had members of his own party vote against him.

    2. Actually it shows what happens when the jury is fixed. Love McConnell’s matador speech on it being legal open season on trump.


        1. I know, huh?

          Trump’s waaaaaaaaaaaay better!!!

          And he ain’t actin’!

          The Greatest President in American History.

          He has absolutely terrified the dimocrats…absolutely terrified…and for good reason, their communist empire is threatened.

            1. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

              – William Shakespeare, Hamlet

              The truth revealed: Never has there been such trepidation and dread as that exhibited by democrats upon the ascension of President Donald J. Trump.

              They understand their nemesis is formidable and foreboding.

              Clearly, democrats conjecture that Donald J. Trump is invincible.

              So do I.

              1. No, he clearly isn’t invincible.

                But he’s vile and a con artist. Thankfully his malevolence is tempered by his limited competence.

                1. “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

                  – Ralph Waldo Emerson

                  Oh, look now.

                  There’s President Donald J. Trump, standing tall.

                  He’s tan and rested and ready to

                  Make America Great Again!


    Foregone conclusion.

    What exactly were the Progressives trying to accomplish when going through this bizarre CHAZ-like street theater?

    1. Convict him the public eye – mission accomplished – and a matter of principle, something most of the GOP senators wouldn’t understand. Pelosi practically begged them to clean up their own mess so we wouldn’t have to do this. Their balls are in Trump’s golf cart in W Palm Beach.

    2. The complaint was utterly fraudulent, of course. Now we have a list of 18 members of the Republican caucus who are willing to accede to an utterly fraudulent complaint. The list in the Senate: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted guilty. Cassidy and Toomey are the two you might not have expected to do this.

      What’s grossly amusing about this is that Congress is chock-a-block with people who snoozed through the summer’s riots when they weren’t cheering them on, and so and so many hours of having rowdies in the Capitol has them making an idiot spectacle of themselves. The mixture of mendacity and self-centeredness is one you seldom see. Kakistocracy is now.

      1. Deco, McConnell is on the floor right now gutting and denouncing Trump and the election fraud Big Lie.


        1. “McConnell is on the floor right now gutting and denouncing Trump”

          Like you, Mitch would sell his firstborn for the right price. Likewise for Chuck. (Especially if they threw in a pedophilia bonus for him as a sweetener).

          As to Trump. This is no longer about Trump. All it’s about now is exposing the blatant election fraud and making sure that it doesn’t happen again in 2 years.

          1. Trump would also “sell his firstborn for the right price. … (Especially if they threw in [an ephebophilia] bonus for him as a sweetener).”

        2. He’s gutting himself. Seppuku. I think he isn’t planning on staying in the Senate.

        3. Which is of interest to anyone who sees McConnell as an authority. Most of us wrote him off as a skeezy grifter a decade ago.

      2. Trump led a kakistocracy. Thankfully he was defeated.

        Only someone with TDS would describe the violent and destructive interruption of the Congressional confirmation of the EC vote as “having rowdies.”

        1. One of the first people arrested at the Capital was an Antifa radical. Soon released without bail. The last thing the Dems want is a thorough investigation of that setup.

          The FBI was declaring no Antifa were present even while websites were posting photos of Antifa members in the building.

          1. I don’t know who was/wasn’t released without bail, and you certainly haven’t backed up your claim.

            One of the Trump supporters who was arrested was allowed to leave the US for her Mexican vacation –
            Does that concern you too?

            “One of the first people arrested at the Capital was an Antifa radical”

            Prove it. If you’re talking about Sullivan, he’d stated long before now that he’s not associated with Antifa, and more than once, people on the left objected to him as an agent provocateur –

  6. “These proceedings are closed.”

    – General MacArthur, U.S.S. Missouri, 1945

    The proceedings in this phantom impeachment never opened.

    These proceedings are illicit, illegitimate and unconstitutional.

    The defendant is not “the president” and the presiding officer is not the Chief Justice, both of which are immutably required by the Constitution.

    These proceedings carry no legal weight or force.

    Democrats are outside the law and not within the law.

    Mangers and Senators who attend and vote in these proceedings are committing criminal acts of high office and must be impeached in turn.

    The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, are culpable and must be impeached for dereliction, gross negligence, abuse of power and usurpation of power by omission.

    America is lawless.

  7. Trump’s lawyers can’t even keep their argument straight.

    Castor, yesterday: “Clearly, there was no insurrection.”

    Van der Veen, today: “The question before us is not whether there was a violent insurrection of the capitol. On that point, everyone agrees.”

    1. Words mean things.

      The event at the Capitol was clearly a riot.

      The event at the Capitol was clearly not insurrection.

      The people who rioted were not armed.


      RIOT noun

      ri·​ot | \ ˈrī-ət

      Definition of riot

      1 a : a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

      b : public violence, tumult, or disorder

      2: a random or disorderly profusion the woods were a riot of color

      3: one that is wildly amusing the new comedy is a riot


      “Insurrection [implies] an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.”

      Choose the Right Synonym for insurrection

      – Rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny mean an outbreak against authority.

      – Rebellion implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers

      – Revolution applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy

      – Uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising

      – Revolt and Insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers

      – Mutiny applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship’s cook

      1. Trump’s lawyer today called it a “violent insurrection.”

        The DOJ is referring to is as an insurrection in some of their court filings, saying things like: “The crimes charged in the indictment involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government.”

        Hmm, whose word here counts more, yours or theirs?

  8. Senator Mike Lee Confirm’s Trump’s Call During Riots

    Proof That Trump Continued Attacking Pence Knowing Situation

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Saturday gave House impeachment managers and former president Donald Trump’s defense attorneys a copy of a log from his cellphone, which shows that as the Jan. 6 riot unfolded, he received a call from the White House at 2:26 p.m. that lasted for four minutes, a spokesman for the senator said.

    The document sheds new light on a key moment when Lee has said that Trump called his cellphone — apparently believing that he was calling Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Providing it to both sides in Trump’s unfolding trial only on Saturday demonstrates the kind of evidence senators could continue to gather about Trump’s activities now that they have voted to seek witness testimony and subpoena documents.

    According to Lee’s office, the log shows that Lee received the call from 202-395-0000, a main White House switchboard number, just 13 minutes after Vice President Mike Pence was hustled from the Senate floor at 2:13 p.m. and Senate action was halted, as insurrectionists stormed through the Capitol building. Lee has said that when he realized Trump’s confusion, he handed his phone to Tuberville.

    Tuberville has said that during the brief call, he personally informed Trump that Pence had just been evacuated from the Senate floor. “I said: ‘Mr. President, they’ve taken the vice president out. They want me to get off the phone, I gotta go,’ ” Tuberville said Friday.

    That account — and the new phone record — strongly undercuts a claim from Trump’s lawyers on the Senate floor on Friday that “at no time” had Trump been informed that Pence was in danger during the hours-long riot, as well as their complaints that accounts of the phone call presented at trial were mere “hearsay.” It also demonstrates that as rioters forced a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes, Trump was focused on finding additional ways to delay the process; Tuberville was at the time taking a lead in objecting to votes confirming Biden’s election win.

    As Trump’s impeachment trial unfolded this week, some senators have zeroed in on a tweet that Trump sent at 2:24 p.m. that day denigrating his own vice president, who had been evacuated from the Senate floor just 11 minutes earlier. At the time, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to use his role presiding over congressional action to overturn the election results and had repeatedly attacked him in a speech to the crowd that morning.

    The phone log proves that Trump’s call to Tuberville came only after he had attacked Pence as “lacking courage.” But, regardless, it also provides evidence that Trump definitively knew of Pence’s predicament only moments later. Trump did not follow up his tweet with any call for Pence’s safety. People close to Pence say Trump never called to inquire about his situation — the two men did not speak again for five days following the incident.

    Edited From:  “Senator Mike Lee Turns Over Phone Record To House Impeachment Managers, Trump Defense”

    Today’s Washington Post

  9. Comrade Schumuckly Putz knows when to side step but never forget knows when to knife in the back.

  10. A perfect description of the neolib/neocon, Democratic and Republican Parties.


    “What this sorry episode reveals above all else is that much of American liberalism, including its all-but-official arm in corporate media, replicated, in the name of combatting Trump, every unethical tactic, every deceitful method, and every toxic assault on basic decency that they insisted Trump singularly represented. They allied with the most amoral societal actors, venerated the most corrupt factions, and vouched for the sleaziest operatives in the name of uprooting amorality, corruption and sleaze. They claimed Trump acted without limits or respect for normalcy and truth while proudly relinquishing all boundaries, principles and constraints of truth in order to fight him.

    In doing so, they became everything they claimed they were fighting. And unlike Trump, who is now gone, these unholy alliances and ethic-free habits that define them will remain and fester forever. That is why when American liberals, including in the media, look in the mirror, what they see staring back is Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt and John Weaver. That is the perfect reflection of what they have become, of who they now are.”

    1. Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt and John Weaver are conservative Republicans (or maybe they’ve become independents in the last year). None of them is a liberal or a Democrat.

      I’m a liberal. When I look in the mirror, I absolutely don’t see Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt or John Weaver.

  11. Meanwhile Grandpa Earpiece Biden is at Camp David relaxing again this weekend after appearing on Friday morning in front of the White House with Dokta Jill (wearing his faded jeans, for dress-down Friday? it’s a work day, Joe, you’re looking way too casual for the newly elected ‘allegedly’ hard-working Unity president). Last weekend Grandpa Earpiece went home to one of his Delaware mansions for the weekend. He’s only been there for 3 weeks and already, he’s wearing dungarees and going away with Jill for long weekends.

    We The People know the election was stolen. The Democrats cheated like hell to “win” and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president. Obama 3.0 is now running the show and ramming thru their radical agenda, that most Americans do not want. Democrats and Biden’s “Unity” presidency are underestimating the anger that is building among half the country right now as this sham-peachment show trial goes on. We are coming for you in 2022.

    1. How long to get to the ‘brown suit’ incident? Less than a month. Bahahahahahahahha


    2. I’d rather that President Biden be at Camp David than that President Trump be at a Trump property.

      Democrats didn’t cheat. You simply don’t like the outcome,

      1. Once again, you miss the point. Also…Democrats always cheat; they are known for cheating; it is their speciality.

  12. What the —-, Chuck, Americans really, really need to hear from this ardent, hysterical, incoherent, democrat supporter-cum-operative; from this witness:

      1. Wow! You’re good.

        We really, really had no idea and were completely unaware that this duplicitous anti-American charlatan is actually a RINO.

        1. Ah, yes, I forgot that any Republican who speaks truth to power must be a RINO. You apparently don’t want truthful people in the GOP.

          1. What you don’t want is constitutional truth. The fact of the matter is that you parasites wouldn’t even want to vote under the actual Constitution. Voting does you no good under the Constitution. Your vote cannot obtain “free stuff” per the words, limitations and restrictions of the Constitution. You can vote liberal all day long but you can’t nullify the Constitution with its severe limitations and restrictions. The Constitution precludes redistribution of wealth and taxation for charity, while it restricts regulation to money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces, and the Constitution does not qualify the 5th Amendment which allows the absolute, immutable right to private property. Per the Constitution, you liberals can’t do any central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth or social engineering. It’s all irrefutably unconstitutional. Read it. The truth of the Constitution is that your collectivist welfare state is unconstitutional. If you want to impeach someone, impeach most of the criminal judicial branch, with emphasis on the rogue Supreme Court. Read the “truth” sometime in the Constitution. You and your comrades adhere to the principles of the Communist manifesto. The truth is that you and your comrades are the enemies of America. That is treason.

              1. Your comments make it clear that you are an idiotic parasite. You don’t want to vote for a Great Nation in freedom, you want to negotiate your vote as currency to obtain “free stuff” from other people’s money. Go back down to the basement, parasite, your mom just called out, “Lunch time, sweetie!”

  13. It appears the Progressives are not so much trying to impeach Trump as impeach the American people from whom they stole the election.

    1. Young, Trump lost in 60 different courts. That doesn’t happen when people have a case. It’s like this insurmountable fact that Trumpers can only explain by going down a rabbit hole of endless conspiracies.

      1. “Young, Trump lost in 60 different courts.”
        Not true. Recall that I said early on, months ago, that this issue was too big for the courts. That proved true but the failures all the way to the Court were even more disgraceful than I expected.

        Your 60 suits didn’t make it to evidence. They were dumped on procedural gimmicks while our legal sages ran and cowered like scalded dogs.

        On the suits that are going to evidence since then Trump is winning.

        What happens if it turns out Biden losses enough votes to overturn the election?

        1. “60 suits didn’t make it to evidence”

          A non-empty proper subset did make it to evidence. Why don’t you know that?

          1. Anon: “A non-empty proper subset did make it to evidence. Why don’t you know that?”
            Trying to look smart? It would be easier to say ‘one suit made it to evidence.’
            You are trying to use CTHD’s style.

            Many of those making it to evidence are being decided in Trump’s favor.

            The big question is what happens when enough votes are legally declared doubtful or invalid for Trump to win?

            Then what do we do? Put locks on the concentration camp fence around the Capitol?

            1. BTW, Young, the reason that I’m talking about proper subsets is because YOU introduced them in your discussion of racial groups. I was only trying to use vocabulary that you’d shown me you found helpful.

                1. It can be useful in any situation that involves sets, depending on what you’re trying to say about the sets. It’s an extremely basic math idea. I think I learned it in third grade or so. You tried to substitute “one suit made it to evidence,” but that’s false, as it was more than one. I just don’t know the exact count. Since you find it pompous, I’ll reword it for you and say “multiple suits made it to evidence.”

                  Now focus on that fact instead of trying to make this about me.

        2. “Your 60 suits didn’t make it to evidence. They were dumped on procedural gimmicks while our legal sages ran and cowered like scalded dogs.”

          Not entirely true. Several law suites were withdrawn on the eve of a court appearance when the judge said lets see the evidence. The judge didn’t dismiss those suites, trumps lawyers did.

        3. False. Evidence was produced and reviewed in most of those cases.

          There’s nothing there skippy. You’ve been had.

      2. The election was stolen beginning with LBJ who stated clearly, “We’ll have those n—–s voting democrat for the next 200 years.” Next came the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabs, etc., etc., etc., as imported voters desirous of benefits and entitlements. Each year voting is more distributed as in “fake” and uncontrollable vote-by-mail. A “place” of voting is required by the Constitution. The election does not take place on “Tuesday” as required by law which is provided for in the Constitution. Collectivists are power-hungry despots who will do anything unconstitutional and anti-American to steal elections. This won’t end well for them.

    2. You really need to examine facts. In which court did trump display any evidence of a stolen election? How about publicly? Are there any publicly available documents that support a stolen election? If there is so much evidence, where is it?

      The attempt to smear two voting machine companies has ended with the companies filing law suites against several individuals and companies for defamation. At this point in time, it is in contention. But if there was nothing there, why did Fox news fire Lou Dobbs so quickly after the law suite was filed.

      1. “Are there any publicly available documents that support a stolen election? If there is so much evidence, where is it?”

        Do you live in Plato’s cave?

        Plenty right here:


        and that’s just all of the forensic IT data documenting the Dominion/Smartmatic fraud.

        There is additional hard verifiable evidence of the mail-in voter fraud as well.

        All of which will be presented in the 6 key State courts where the most flagrant fraud occurred. It will all be exposed.

        1. Watcher:

          Show us a recognizable source that says those key states will hold hearings.

          If they certified their election results, they aren’t going to re-litigate.

          1. “Show us a recognizable source . . .”

            Show us the evidence that refutes the arguments made in the article Watcher linked to.

            1. I started to look, but he links to an Excel spreadsheet that you have to download in order to open. You’d have to be nuts to download and open a file from a site whose trustworthiness is unknown.

              He says he has a declaration, but he doesn’t provide any evidence that it was filed under oath. There’s no way to verify that it’s an actual declaration. That person claims that “helped author the Joint Urgency of Needs Statement for the CAUI EXORD,” but I just searched for that document, and it came up empty.


              Given that I can’t even verify that much, I’m not going to waste more time.

    3. Correct. They are taking the Right to choose a President away from the People and giving it to a select few of their own.

  14. The Senators once again show how little interest they have in the truth here. They’ve chosen not to hear any witnesses. Cowards.

      1. What do you mean “either,” Messy?

        Do you not understand that the Democratic Senators are a subset of “The Senators”? Did you fail math?

        1. Aninny:

          “What do you mean “either,” Messy?

          Do you not understand that the Democratic Senators are a subset of “The Senators”? Did you fail math?”

          No tested out of the math requirement. Oh and thinking that the subset has the exact characteristics of the whole is the informal logical fallacy of division. Best expressed as: “If this bucket of sand is heavy, then it follows that each grain of sand in the bucket must also be heavy.”

          No charge for the critical thinking lesson. Always glad to help those who can’t help themselves.

          1. To that end ab exercises are recommended, because if you could hinge at the waist better…., well, you know.

          2. Your school must have had a low math requirement, since your current understanding shows you have a faulty understanding.

            The Senate agreed to this by unanimous consent, so every single Senator f’d up, and the claim that they f’d up is true for any subset. Your analogy is false. Your claim that this was an informal logical fallacy of division is false.

            I hope no one wastes their money paying for lessons from you. If they have, they should get their money back. If you want to help someone who needs help, get help for yourself, as you clearly need it.

    1. ANNON What is the truth ? Here/hear is the truth as stated buy the Prof. “The position of Schumer and the Democrats is/are diametrically opposed to their positions in the last two impeachments” .Tells one everything about a Democrat hypocrite. Just depends upon the agenda wanted by a Dem is what position he takes. These Dems are doing more 180s that Joe Liberman did. I thought back then, that would be impossible.

  15. If “by popular demand” you mean, “Democrat demand,” then yes. If, on the other hand, “popular demand” refers to what the people wanted, the people wanted a free and fair election (which we did not get). Sham election, sham trial, sham analysis, we get the drift. Just don’t call it “popular demand.”

  16. A pharmacist says he has filled Alzheimer’s prescriptions for members of Congress

    By Sarah Kliff on October 11, 2017

    “Mike Kim, the reserved pharmacist-turned-owner of the pharmacy, said he has gotten used to knowing the most sensitive details about some of the most famous people in Washington.

    “At first it’s cool, and then you realize, I’m filling some drugs that are for some pretty serious health problems as well. And these are the people that are running the country,” Kim said, listing treatments for conditions like diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

    “It makes you kind of sit back and say, ‘Wow, they’re making the highest laws of the land and they might not even remember what happened yesterday.’”


  17. McCarthy-Trump Phone Call During Riots Overlooked Until Now

    In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

    “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

    McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

    Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

    The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President’s state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details were first reported by Punchbowl News and discussed publicly by McCarthy.

    “He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them,” a Republican member of Congress said of Trump.  “On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does.”

    Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump’s comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.

    “You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at,” Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. “That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn’t care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry.”

    “We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag,” she added, voicing her extreme frustration: “I’m trying really hard not to say the F-word.”

    Herrera Beutler went a step further on Friday night, calling on others to speak up about any other details they might know regarding conversations Trump and Pence had on January 6.

    “To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time,” she said in a statement.

    Another Republican member of Congress said the call was problematic for Trump.

    “I think it speaks to the former President’s mindset,” said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who also voted to impeach Trump last month. “He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country.”

    As senators prepare to determine Trump’s fate, multiple Republicans thought the details of the call were important to the proceedings because they believe it paints a damning portrait of Trump’s lack of action during the attack. At least one of the sources who spoke to CNN took detailed notes of McCarthy’s recounting of the call.

    Trump and McCarthy did not respond to requests for comment.

    Edited from:  “New Details About Trump-McCarthy Shouting Match Show Trump Refused To Call-Off Rioters”

    CNN, 2/12/21

    1. CNN. Well there’s an unbiased, reliable news source for you. When quoted by someone called “Anonymous” it just solidifies the value of the quote, i.e. less than zero.

      1. CNN’s “reliable sources” are always “anonymous” and “familiar with their thinking”

        AKA fake freakin newz

    2. I read an article in politico this morning. About three quarters of they way through the article it was stated that Beutler would probably only testify under oath if she was subpoenaed. It will be interesting to see if she will volunteer or be compelled to testify. Could happen that a big Rosana Rosana Dana “Never Mind” moment may appear.

    3. “. . . it paints a damning portrait of Trump’s lack of action . . .”

      So Trump tries to take action to stop the year-long riots, and he’s condemned as a “fascist.” Then he (allegedly) does not take action, and he’s condemned for (allegedly) inciting an insurrection.

      I think there’s a theme here.

    4. If youy think CNN is straight up all facts, you are a fool. CNN, just as most of the other alphabet cahnnels, are totally biased. You sit on your rear end, finger in your ear, and let it slide. Four and 1/2 years now, every effort to not accept that DT won and remove him even be a coup, and yet there is not outcry. Not for one day did a Dem pretend to work with DT for the benefit of The Nation. Not for one day did the Dems accept the fact that DT was POTUS. It has come to the point only a Socialists Dems opinion matterers and it Rules, per them. Biden comes in (Demented) wanting unity?. Biden committed the Crime by demanding that Ukraine fire the Prosecutor or not receive the $1 and 1/2 Billon dollars of aid. That is an immutable fact. Yet no one goes ballistic on that. That is why America is heading into an UnCivil War. Can you not ascertain that thought, hossfly????

  18. The Demoncrats won’t allow a FORENSIC AUDIT but I feel that it should be requested since they repeat ad nauseam that PRESIDENT TRUMP lied about it being a free and fair election. The cowardly scum Refuse to let a transparent evaluation and just say there’s no proof while refusing to allow anyone to look for it. Mr Biden will never ever be our President until this occurs.

    1. Forensic audits are a state matter, not a federal one, and many of the contested states have Republican-majority legislatures, so it’s odd that you’re only complaining about Democrats.

      1. Those Republicans are RINOs that are out to sabotage Trump. Anyone who opposes Trump is either Deep State or a RINO. Dude keep up with conspiracies.

      2. “Forensic audits are a state matter, not a federal one . . .”

        That is false.

        Such audits, especially as they pertain to elections, can be ordered by the House, the Senate, a federal grand jury, a federal prosecutor, an independent counsel, the DOJ — just to name a few.

  19. Now the Senate Democrats are going to vote on what witnesses will be allowed. They have already realized that they have stepped in it with this witness business. It is going to be interesting to see how they justify only calling the witnesses that they want to call. It’s like an air balloon of a kangaroo. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger and will soon not fit in the courtroom.

    1. Once again, you pretend to read others’ minds.

      You have no idea what their views are. Learn patience. We’ll find out once they vote on it.

      I’ll encourage my Senators to allow a limited number of witnesses on each side, and to send it to a committee via Rule 11 to do the depositions while the Senate as a whole works on the Covid relief reconciliation.

      1. Anon, you encourage me to learn patience. Where was your patience when you made no statements of disagreement when the Democrats decided on a snap impeachment. We’ve got the goods. No witnesses necessary they exclaimed! Speed is of the essence! You are already saying the number of witnesses should be limited. Write this down. Make a little note. The Democrats will be wrangling about what witnesses and how many witnesses will be allowed. Anon has been given her circus and her bread.

        1. “Where was your patience when you made no statements of disagreement when the Democrats decided on a snap impeachment. ”

          If you think I said something impatient, quote it. Your evidenceless claim doesn’t cut it.

          “You are already saying the number of witnesses should be limited.”

          Yes, but it’s not up to me, and I’ll just have to wait and see what they decide. I can be patient.

          “The Democrats will be wrangling …”

          It’s not up to the Democrats alone, so don’t distort what happens next. The entire Senate will vote on it, and my impression is that both the House managers and Trump’s lawyers can make requests about who’d be called as witnesses.

          1. Anon, you say it’s not up to you but you state that the number of witnesses will be limited. You say that I do not know what the Senate will do and you then you proceed with your opinion about what they will do. Why should the witnesses be limited. Remember, it is required that witnesses must be placed under oath and deposed by the defense. Let’s wait to see how many brave souls will voluntarily step forward, raise their right hand and declare to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Otherwise known as the proof is in the pudding.

            1. “you state that the number of witnesses will be limited”

              No, I didn’t. I said “I’ll encourage my Senators to allow a limited number of witnesses on each side”

              Did you fail English, so you don’t understand the difference between what I said and your substitution? Do you always get what you want when you encourage someone with a lot more power to do something? I certainly don’t. Nor do I pretend to tell the future.

              The Senate has already f’d up and decided not to hear witnesses after all.

              1. Anon, so now you criticize the Democratic Senators when they have already backtracked on the witnesses you wanted. You say the Senate f’d up. You left out the part where the Democrats in the Senate f’d up. They did get to put the statement by their star witness in the record. Let’s not worry about that little raising of the right hand to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We don’t need no stinking oath. I predicted a Rosana Rosana Dana “Never mind” moment. It didn’t take long.

                1. “You left out the part where the Democrats in the Senate f’d up.”

                  You must have failed math. The Democrats in the Senate are a subset of the Senate. When the entire Senate f’s up, that means that all subsets f’d up. So no, I didn’t leave it out.

          2. Anon, you have never criticized even one step that the Democratic Senators have made including exclusion of witnesses. You defended and still defend their actions with every word you write. First no witnesses necessary and now witnesses necessary. First snap impeachment necessary now no hurry. Finding the words is difficult. I guess I’ll leave it up to WOW!

            1. TIT, you regularly lie about me, and you’re doing it here. I periodically criticize Democrats, including Democratic Senators, and I just did so at 1:12.


          3. Hey Anon, the number of brave souls to step up and give their truth and nothing but the truth oath has come to a grand total of exactly zero. If you go back to my previous posts you will find my little phrase. Write this down. Take a little note. You called for patience to hear the witnesses. The Senate Democrats didn’t heed your call.

      2. Does not the Constitution have something to say about Impeachment Trials trumping all other business of the Senate?

      3. Well hell, ANNON You democrats believe you can read DT’s mind and know his intent. Yet you chose to castigate someone on that basis, as your assumption? Hey, Comey read Hillary’s mind and said; she did not intend to commit crimes with personal server having classified data, her emails having classified data, her giving classified data to attorneys who DID Not have Clearence to hold the said dat, even the Corporstion in Colorado did not have clearence to hold Classified Data. Comey did not put Hill under oath, nor record the pseudo -investigation questioning. Strozk and his adulteress mate should be in prison is my allegation.
        Obama, Biden, DOJ, FBI, CIA, State Dept, NSA, NI, they committted a Coup agains DT and that is being whitewashed and suppossedly buried. But it isn’t and that karma is yet to come. That is why uncivil war will come is my belief. You don’t see the tsunami of
        hot bubbling water?

    2. It is going to be interesting to see how they justify only calling the witnesses that they want to call.

      It is instructive that they do not consult with their constituents. Maybe they prefer not to do so so as to accelerate their demise? Why help Americans in addressing the true health crisis at hand? It’s not like they are worthy and righteous political leaders. No one said they were intelligent nor honorable political leaders.

      This past year has seen a flurry of published scientific literature that confirms what many of us knew: Americans are killing themselves. Period. Now would be a good time for leadership in America but perhaps the leaders aren’t concerned.

      Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Obesity and T2D: Literature Review

      There has been great interest in the innate and adaptive immune response of patients with already weakened or unbalanced immune systems as those found in persons suffering from comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome (overweight, obesity, hypertension, T2D). A common feature in these patients is a chronic and low-grade inflammatory state and altered immune function, which appears to increase the risk of having a poorer clinical outcome compared to healthy individuals during the current COVID-19 infection.

      1. Estovir, it is going to be interesting to watch which witness are allowed. Additional fun will be had by watching their writhing to extricate themselves from the Gordian Knot that they have voluntarily tied around their wastes. No sword of Alexander The Great will be coming to their rescue. Give em some credit. They stayed on for six but they couldn’t make it to eight.

        1. He Estovir, did you see that the Democrats, after no witnesses to yes witnesses are now back to no witnesses. It seems like they have a propensity for changing the rules to try to change the votes. Just sayin.

Comments are closed.