No, child. It didn't.
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
Believe what you want, but Senators did hear from witnesses and had ample docs too. And so if the majority of Senators believe they heard all they need, and vote accordingly, then that's that. It isn't the job of the Senate to correct the flaws in the House's case. Too bad, kid.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
No witnesses were called at trial, and no documents were entered into the record. It's the Senate's job to hold a fair and impartial trial. They didn't. These are facts, child.
1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 74 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @stealthygeek @GOPLeader
5A rights are to protect the accused.
#SchiftySchiff denied Trump his due process in the House. Once in the Senate, if Trump's council didn't deem cross-examination of witness testimony essential to their defense, then that's their right to wave. The majority of Senators agreed.0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @cindyaelliott @GOPLeader
Due process applies to criminal trials, child. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, process.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 55 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
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.
2 proslijeđena tweeta 59 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
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
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.
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.