Liberals head are gonna explode yo.

@SW-User Democrats are out shopping for a biased jury. If they can't pick a biased jury they will just sit on it. Just imagine what damage Nancy and her thugs can inflict on America as a lame-duck House next December.

@SW-User Well then if the case against the President is so overwhelming, what are the goddamndemocrats waiting for?

@Heartlander @sunsporter1649 Because Mitch McConnell preferred to have a mini-trial with no live witnesses in a fast move to acquit trump, then I understand why Nancy would delay sending the articles to the Senate. Until the Senate acts accordingly, the Trump will remain impeached, and that's something he doesn't like.

@SW-User Read the constitution. The SENATE has the SOLE responsibility to hold the trial. The house and its speaker has NO say in how it is conducted. Here is a clue. The house is the prosecution. The President is the defendant. The senate is the judge and jury. The prosecution does not get a say in how the judge conducts the trial or how the jury considers the evidence. Nancy has megalomania issues and thinks she can run the presidency, the house and the senate with her gavel. Too bad for her that she will lose the gavel in Nov 2020 if not before. She is either drunk or is slipping a mental gear or two based on her media performance post impeachment vote. She wasn't even making sense.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]The senate is the judge and jury.[/quote]

And yet McConnell states he's not an impartial juror. That says a lot. So is the leader of the House suppose to give impeachment articles over to the leader of the Senate who admitted he is not going to treat the impeachment trial in a fair manner?

@SW-User He doesn't have to be. The prosecution isn't impartial either.

@hippyjoe1955 Well then there you go, that's why Nancy is withholding the articles of impeachment until the Senate gets their act together.

@SW-User She doesn't get a say in the matter any more than the senate had a say in her role. BTW McConnell is not the senate. There are 2 members from each state. Some are democrat and some are republican. You do need a lesson in law and civics.

@SW-User You mean she is going to hold the articles of impeachment until the Senate turns democrat!

@hippyjoe1955 Even before trial people in the Senate are supposed to take an oath stating they will be impartial. Mitch McConnell is the Majority Leader of the Senate, so he can make the impeachment trial anything he wanted it to be. For him to say he is not an impartial juror and will not create a fair trial, that's a red flag.

@SW-User No they aren't. They are supposed to exercise their judgement as they see fit. Sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. If the house can vote for impeachment on a purely partisan matter the senate can dismiss on the same principle.

@sunsporter1649 Until the Senate conducts a fair trial. Fixed it for ya.

@SW-User As fair as the proceedings in the House?

@sunsporter1649 Given the fact that the House welcomed Trump to testify [b]twice[/b] but he refused and called in Trump's witnesses to testify but were [b]told by the Trump admin. no to attend[/b] I don't see how the Democrats were not being fair in the impeachment hearings. The House wanted to hear both sides, but Trump did not want that to happen.

@SW-User What about the nine witnesses for the defense that nadler prohibited from testifying?

@sunsporter1649 Given the fact that all who testified, repeated the same thing as the whistleblower stated in his complaint, then he is irrelevant. This would also go for the Bidens and and Adam Schiff as well, they are irrelevant as this is Trump's impeachment not theirs. They could testify, but what was that going to do? All Trump and HIS witnesses had to do was testify, release the full phone call and give evidence that stated why there was no wrong doing in the Ukraine situation. But instead, Trump pointed the finger at everyone else, while crying foul that he did not have due process.

@SW-User I guess didn't follow the hearings. If you did you would know that NONE of the witnesses said anything that was perfectly normal in a functioning executive branch. The only one with first hand knowledge thought he understood the President's wishes until the President told him otherwise. Demoncraps are do uninformed.

@hippyjoe1955 Then why would Trump go through all the trouble to block or tell some of these witnesses not to testify, if they have provided nothing damning?

@SW-User Do you understand executive privilege? BTW an accused is not required to cooperate with his accusers. He was not going to let his people fall into a perjury trap where they forget a date or some such trivia and are charged with perjury like Flynn.

@hippyjoe1955 Then that makes Trump the guilty one here. He feared his witnesses were going to commit perjury and blocked/ told them from testifying. Even if they did not commit perjury, that was still a bad move on Trump's part. There was no need for Trump to say he did not have due process because he blocked witnesses from testifying before the inquiry to defend him.

@hippyjoe1955 He did it because he has something to hide.

@hippyjoe1955 LOL ,yes, as we all know, guilty until proven innocent. Its the American way, right?