There have been 19 impeachment trials in the Senate in our history. Every single one of them included witness testimony and evidence. Except this one, because it was not a trial. It was a cover up. Again, these are facts.
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
None before this trial incorporated VIDEO CLIPS of actual witness testimony. Again, these are the facts. The House Managers FAILED to make their case. It's just that simple, kiddo.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
Video clips are not witnesses, child. Witnesses can be questioned and cross-examined. Video clips cannot. The results of the House's investigation and the evidence they collected was ironclad. If there had been a trial, it would have resulted in a conviction. There wasn't one.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 37 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
As for a conviction, a conviction for what?? Obstructing Congress??? Oh please! Seeking a determination from the 3rd branch of our government DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION, kiddo.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
Yes, child. Stonewalling all evidence, documents, and witnesses is the very definition of Obstruction of Congress. But that was the second, less serious charge Trump faced.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
When there's a dispute between 2 branches of government, it is standard to rely on the 3rd branch to rule on the dispute. Trump's council followed well established protocol but the House, in their rush to convict, refused to wait on a ruling. That's NOT OBSTRUCTION, kiddo.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
There is no dispute, child. Stonewalling all subpoenas for witnesses and evidence is Obstruction, cut and dry. There is no protocol for counsel to refuse to honor every subpoena from the House while it's conducting its oversight duty. That's never happened before.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Nor was the House in a "rush to convict," as they aren't the people who do the conviction. It's not something they're able to do, at all. The House subpoenaed witnesses, the White House obstructed them, so they charged him with obstruction. Facts, child.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
The Executive Branch can't be convicted of obstructing Congress if they followed proper procedure and filed with the Courts to resolve their dispute. It couldn't be more clear. I guess you aren't a big Spock fan becuz you're most illogical.pic.twitter.com/G04zETJClI
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
There is no "proper procedure" for completely stonewalling an investigation, child. It does not exist.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
There is proper procedure for disputing the merits and validity of a subpoena. Ask ANY former Presidential administration. This is as basic as it gets, kiddo.
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.