GOP senators reject plans to dismiss Trump impeachment

Sanders is gonna beat the President in an election?

Nope. Not a chance.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO TO TRIAL! DESTROY THEM ALL TRUMP!

originally posted by: PurpleFox
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO TO TRIAL! DESTROY THEM ALL TRUMP!

Unfortunately it looks like each witness will be voted on whether they are allowed to be called.
Dems + RINOs have a MAJORITY so the witnesses will all be on the convict side. All witnesses favourable to Trump's case or that he wants will be rejected.
Dems are in control of every decision put to a vote, BUT they do not have 67 votes to remove (at least not yet).

There is no way either Biden will be called or anyone else protected by the swamp.

a reply to: UKTruth

Just wait. I told you this on election night too when you would have called it for Hillary at 8pm.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: PurpleFox
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO TO TRIAL! DESTROY THEM ALL TRUMP!

Unfortunately it looks like each witness will be voted on whether they are allowed to be called.
Dems + RINOs have a MAJORITY so the witnesses will all be on the convict side. All witnesses favourable to Trump's case or that he wants will be rejected.
Dems are in control of every decision put to a vote, BUT they do not have 67 votes to remove (at least not yet).

There is no way either Biden will be called or anyone else protected by the swamp.

They won't be called because they are not on trial. Trump is on trial and Biden(s) testimony is irrelevant into whether or not Trump is guilty. The Bidens could be guilty as sin and that still doesn't relieve Trump from responsibility for his actions. I know you all feel that if Biden is guilty of something then Trump is innocent. It is not how it works at all.

In fact Pelosi has played this brilliantly. The Repubs in the senate do their job they pretty much have to confirm the impeachment. If they don't hold a fair trial, there won't be any defense for them in their campaigns. Either way the campaign ads should be very interesting and the Repubs are fodder no matter how it turns out. I think they are all too smart to follow Trump to their graves. In fact it may be politically expedient to make the break now and rid their hands of the sideshow.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
[ Biden(s) testimony is irrelevant into whether or not Trump is guilty. The Bidens could be guilty as sin and that still doesn't relieve Trump from responsibility for his actions.

False. Like I said before if there was/is legitimate corruption in the Ukraine, his actions were just, and warranted via our treaty with the Ukraine to investigate corruption.

I seriously don't understand how the Democrats minds work, that you could see all the evidence of these people putting their kids in the Ukraine to funnel money (Biden, Pelosi, Romney, Kerry all have kids in the energy business getting kick backs), and say there is nothing there. It really scares me that people are this easily duped, and are out here in society with us.

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
[ Biden(s) testimony is irrelevant into whether or not Trump is guilty. The Bidens could be guilty as sin and that still doesn't relieve Trump from responsibility for his actions.

False. Like I said before if there was/is legitimate corruption in the Ukraine, his actions were just, and warranted via our treaty with the Ukraine to investigate corruption.

I seriously don't understand how the Democrats minds work, that you could see all the evidence of these people putting their kids in the Ukraine to funnel money (Biden, Pelosi, Romney, Kerry all have kids in the energy business getting kick backs), and say there is nothing there. It really scares me that people are this easily duped, and are out here in society with us.

Trump failed to use the treaty in his demands for investigations or maybe Ukraine refused to investigate on that basis. So Trump upped the ante to bribery.

A bank robber is not relieved of responsibility just because he has a bank account at the bank he robbed. No trial will give credence to the idea that he was only taking his own money, which he could have done by cashing a check instead.

It really scares me that people can interpret things so wrong and still be so vocal politically.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

Trump failed to use the treaty in his demands for investigations or maybe Ukraine refused to investigate on that basis. So Trump upped the ante to bribery.

A bank robber is not relieved of responsibility just because he has a bank account at the bank he robbed. No trial will give credence to the idea that he was only taking his own money, which he could have done by cashing a check instead.

It really scares me that people can interpret things so wrong and still be so vocal politically.

Wait, what? How do you know he wasn't using his power, as granted in the treaty, to investigate the corruption? Do politicians get a pass if they may run for President? I am so confused...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Robbing a bank, and investigating corruption are nowhere in the same ball field, county, state, or country.

So you think it is fine for Senators to have children working for energy companies overseas, and profiting off there parents positions? Ok, good to know where you stand. Will refrain from responding to you. Thanks, bye!

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

Trump failed to use the treaty in his demands for investigations or maybe Ukraine refused to investigate on that basis. So Trump upped the ante to bribery.

A bank robber is not relieved of responsibility just because he has a bank account at the bank he robbed. No trial will give credence to the idea that he was only taking his own money, which he could have done by cashing a check instead.

It really scares me that people can interpret things so wrong and still be so vocal politically.

Wait, what? How do you know he wasn't using his power, as granted in the treaty, to investigate the corruption? Do politicians get a pass if they may run for President? I am so confused...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Robbing a bank, and investigating corruption are nowhere in the same ball field, county, state, or country.

So you think it is fine for Senators to have children working for energy companies overseas, and profiting off there parents positions? Ok, good to know where you stand. Will refrain from responding to you. Thanks, bye!

That's not the rules of the treaty. It has defined procedures in place, the first is non-disclosure until the investigation is completed. You can't just make the rules up at home you know.

The bank robber example is indeed a good comparison. You had someone who had the ability to get his cash in a lawful way (cashing a check) but proceeded to try get the cash in an unlawful way (robbing the bank). Trump did not proceed under the legal avenues available to him (using the Treaty) but instead resorted to illegal actions (bribery) to try to get his way.

originally posted by: Gothmog
You know you just based a thread off of a "glorified headline" , don't you ?
The only Senator mentioned is Susan Collins
Questionable at the least....
Susan Collins is truly a RINO
More likely than not , she votes Democratic Party lines.

As far as the rest , did you even read the article ?
Most are pushing to hear both sides.
Know why ?
Pelosi does not want ANYONE heard from as that would destroy her coup attempt.

Denying ignorance .
Why ?
Why do folks continue to take glorified headlines and run with them ? Read the effin article.

I assume you posted the same response to the "glorified headlines" posted from gateway pundit as well.. right?

As they should,....

Think about this for a second....

Articles are out before them, asking for each and every "Great" Senators attenion.

Does it..or does it not deserve a full disclosure of said events?

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Even if they don't do what's right, Bernie will kick his ass in November! FEEL THE BURN!

Is that before or after capitulating to the highest bidder?

Fools never learn...I guess he's counting on it.

Lev Parnas is on Rachel Maddow spilling the beans. In any kind of fair trial there is no way that Trump prevails. Republican failure to uphold American values will lead to a crushing defeat. There only chance at this point is to abandon ship, impeach, and show America they are working in the interest of the people. It's all over but the fat lady.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

It must be painful to be that deluded, I hope you can get some help.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

It must be painful to be that deluded, I hope you can get some help.

It won't be long before we see exactly who is deluded.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Lev Parnas is on Rachel Maddow spilling the beans. In any kind of fair trial there is no way that Trump prevails. Republican failure to uphold American values will lead to a crushing defeat. There only chance at this point is to abandon ship, impeach, and show America they are working in the interest of the people. It's all over but the fat lady.

Lmfao, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
Even if they don't do what's right, Bernie will kick his ass in November! FEEL THE BURN!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks, I needed that...

Let's say you suspect some sort of wrong doing or corruption in the Ukraine that may impact whether Ukraine is still eligible to received the funds promised. As President, you announce an investigation, led by people who have actually been appointed to positions within the U.S. government, and you see how it plays out. That's how an honest and/or competent President would have played it.

What you don't do, is send your personal attorney and other associates not appointed to positions within the administration or government to dig around and create the appearance that you are up to something shady, as Trump as chosen to do. Even now, with Trumps' "I did nothing wrong" mantra, he was, at best, using his personal attorney to conduct U.S. official business, which is also a HUGE problem. There is NO question that advisors (all far more intelligent than Trump) repeatedly warned him about using his personal attorney improperly, and he chose, as always, to ignore them.

And it damn sure doesn't help when you refuse to allow important witnesses to testify.

I suspect, in the end, the reckless nutjob Gulianni will end up taking the fall for everything.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: PurpleFox
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO TO TRIAL! DESTROY THEM ALL TRUMP!

Unfortunately it looks like each witness will be voted on whether they are allowed to be called.
Dems + RINOs have a MAJORITY so the witnesses will all be on the convict side. All witnesses favourable to Trump's case or that he wants will be rejected.
Dems are in control of every decision put to a vote, BUT they do not have 67 votes to remove (at least not yet).

There is no way either Biden will be called or anyone else protected by the swamp.

They won't be called because they are not on trial. Trump is on trial and Biden(s) testimony is irrelevant into whether or not Trump is guilty. The Bidens could be guilty as sin and that still doesn't relieve Trump from responsibility for his actions. I know you all feel that if Biden is guilty of something then Trump is innocent. It is not how it works at all.

In fact Pelosi has played this brilliantly. The Repubs in the senate do their job they pretty much have to confirm the impeachment. If they don't hold a fair trial, there won't be any defense for them in their campaigns. Either way the campaign ads should be very interesting and the Repubs are fodder no matter how it turns out. I think they are all too smart to follow Trump to their graves. In fact it may be politically expedient to make the break now and rid their hands of the sideshow.

Witnesses can be called without them being on trial. You've not understood the defence, perhaps because like Pelosi, you are not interested in the constitutionally sound defence which will no doubt be put forward by the defence team. Simply proving that the President had every reason to launch an investigation into courruption is enough to completely sink the abuse of power accusation.