Peter Linss

Trump committed Bribery—the facts confirm it, and many of us told Democrats to write the articles of impeachment that way. They didn't—which, ironically, means they still can. Democrats should continue their investigation for another two months and then impeach Trump for Bribery.

If Chuck Schumer has the right to put forward amendments, and if the Senate has to debate those amendments, why couldn't he put forward 3 amendments to force the recusal of those 3 GOP jurors who are witnesses in the case? In argument, the managers could establish their conflict.

REMEMBER: three of the GOP votes to stop the trial came from men who shouldn't have been sitting as jurors, as they're witnesses in the case. The 49 votes in favor of a real trial represented a majority of those properly seated as jurors. The vote was as much a sham as the trial.

If you've read *anything* about Trump's activities in China, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran or Venezuela, let alone those of his dealings in Ukraine that are still coming to light, you know the House of Representatives has a *lot* more impeaching to do RETWEET if you're ready to roll

Senate Republicans just failed the American people & broke their oath to the United States Constitution.

Never forget: the vote we're talking about now is just a vote to have all relevant evidence pre-verdict. Any GOP senator voting against having all relevant evidence before they vote (seemingly inevitably) to acquit is a coward and a liar no matter what justification they provide.

At the reception, the alien ambassador turned to their human guide. "It seems so strange," they said, "that there are two distinct types of humans." "Ah, yes, 'men' and 'women'. You see-" "No, multiple sexes and genders is common. I mean how some are unable to say 'I was wrong'."

These impeachment hearings are like if Sesame Street was trying to figure out if Cookie Monster ate all the cookies

Let's be very clear about this—we're no longer in "Maybe they'll lose two or three votes?" territory. We're at the point at which *no U.S. senator* can justify opposing witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial. Media must *stop* framing this as "Maybe Democrats can peel off two..."https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1221823189371760640 …

The President blocked our request for Bolton’s testimony. Now we see why: Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense. If the trial is to be fair, Senators must insist that Mr. Bolton be called as a witness, and provide his notes and other documents.https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1221571042159878146 …

2/ Listen carefully to what Republican senators are saying. They don't say, "There's nothing to investigate here." They don't say, "The evidence is complete." They *repeatedly and forcefully* say that "The House needs to do more investigation." Why not take them up on that offer?

"... but throughout all my travels in time, after all missions to alter history, what brings me the greatest hope for the future is that I have often fought my younger self. Because I have learned, and changed. It is never too late to do that. Thanks for coming to my TED talk."

If you're in London, come along!https://twitter.com/triblondon/status/1220663286770864129 …

Nobody knows. Nobody knows why the House is dormant. Why it's not calling Bolton and Lev Parnas. Why it's not opening an impeachment inquiry into Pence. Why it's not reviewing whether a new article for bribery is appropriate. Why it isn't opening an impeachment inquiry on China.https://twitter.com/espletz/status/1220760261902008320 …

trump could shoot someone in the senate and still get acquitted 53-47. unless he shot a republican, then it would be 52-47.

We have a cover up. The senators who are voting against documents, those who wish to hide witnesses, those who are content whistling past the truth they surely know, have made their bargain with their conscience. The question is where the conscience of the nation will fall.