It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Trial Without Witnesses

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: Admitted

i think if you hang on a bit you will get your witnesses


I hope so.

I mean, I don't have to hang on but, just keep living.

I just want the truth. In firsthand witnesses. That seems too much for some reason.




posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

You aren't obligated to respond to everyone. Many times there are quite a few responses that are closely aligned. I have found that when I cannot counter the argument with logic or facts, there is a chance I am wrong and need to rethink my position. Either way, relax. This is supposed to be fun, most of us don't get paid for this.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Why?

The Senate looks at the case the House presents. If a witness is central to the case, then the House has the responsibility of bringing that witness before the House. It's really that simple. Just saying the courts were too slow when you then took over a month to relay your articles of impeachment ... that doesn't cut it.

Either do the job right, or when you fail, you have no one to blame but yourself.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Firsthand witnesses? The ones that were actually on the call. And seems only one had a problem, and gave House testimony that has been fairly discredited as supposition, assumption and feelings by his own admission.

So it would seem there is nothing there on the phone call front. Why do we need more secondhand witnesses giving hearsay testimony when they can use the House’s transcripts and video? Still nothing there, but it was “enough for the House to forward the process” which is code speak for “we got nothing but Orang Man Bad.”

A good old fashioned slander suit against Schiff would be a rating bonanza in comparison. Bet he would drag as many with him as he could to be fined in separate lawsuits.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed. It was done wrong.

Thing is...we have a Trial Without Witnesses and it is bogus.

If anyone on the Senate wants to believe themselves doing right and just passing this off...they are criminal. They are not fulfilling their oath.

I stand by thread title (it's my only voice, really). We have a trial without witnesses.

And that is bogus. We have a president on trial and we don't choose to hear any reason why.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I'm watching this to groom my looming anger issues, and it works like a charme!

Moving on... where do we stand with regards to direct democracy and a total redraw of our political landscape to achieve some actual freedom, justice and equality for everyone in a very distant future?

Any suggestions?



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Admitted


I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses.



You had them already.

Like an election, you can't stop the process because
you do not like the results.



No. I haven't. No firsthand witnesses. No Bolton, Pompeo, Trump himself, Mulvaney.

Not one. The senate can provide that. The house should have.


But they didn't and that's their job.

You keep screaming about witnesses... the House had 17 OF THEM! The President had NONE. It was a mistrial from the start. That is what you don't understand.

With the 17 witnesses testimony, there has been nothing that incriminates the President or warrants the Senate to step outside the sphere of responsibility in an impeachment trial to finish the House investigation on the fly.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   
This is all done by the democrats because they have noone that can beat President Trump and they know it. The democrats are in big trouble.
The truth is this impeachment is all made up, the democrats and never trumpers have been looking for evidence of criminal behavior and making stuff up for 3+ years and the clock was running out and they had to go with this impeachment avenue.
The democrats and the msm are clearly aligned, disgusted with the " 4th " branch.


originally posted by: Admitted
I give up.

10 pages.

I can't respond to it all. I don't have the time or energy.

We have a trial without witnesses. I want to know the truth.

Call Bolton. Call Biden. Call everyone.

But no witnesses?

All of our government is a joke. Yes all. House, Senate, and Trump.

And the whole world is seeing it.

...

I apologize for not responding individually there are too many posts.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed. It was done wrong.

Thing is...we have a Trial Without Witnesses and it is bogus.

If anyone on the Senate wants to believe themselves doing right and just passing this off...they are criminal. They are not fulfilling their oath.

I stand by thread title (it's my only voice, really). We have a trial without witnesses.

And that is bogus. We have a president on trial and we don't choose to hear any reason why.



We have a trial with 17 witnesses, and actually, 18 if you include the IG. Why was his testimony left out, hmmm? Why did the House block and purposely omit that? Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

This is all a ploy to make the Senate look complicit in a cover up for the Senate elections.

You sound extremely biased. I have to wonder if you'd allow them to bring in the Bidens, Obama, and other Democrats that were complicit in all of this or if you just want to hear the House continue to waste your tax money on hearing themselves speak.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: ketsuko

Agreed. It was done wrong.

Thing is...we have a Trial Without Witnesses and it is bogus.

If anyone on the Senate wants to believe themselves doing right and just passing this off...they are criminal. They are not fulfilling their oath.

I stand by thread title (it's my only voice, really). We have a trial without witnesses.

And that is bogus. We have a president on trial and we don't choose to hear any reason why.


Witnesses should have been part of the house process, they rushed and passed it, then oddly held on to it for a few weeks, then handed over the evidence and screamed at the sky for more power in determining what happens next.

That's just not how it works. The senate isn't responsible for finding evidence, that was the job of the house. When a trial starts, ALL of the evidence is submitted. Witness testimony is typically used to confirm under oath the validity of said evidence. ALL the witnesses so far have been under oath, and those that didn't testify could have been compelled to via the courts. Typically the courts fast track such issues and had the house spent the few weeks they held the impeachment articles for to instead wait for a court verdict, they might just have their witnesses.

That's not what happened though, now is it. The house rushed everything just to wait. The evidence is submitted, there ARE INDEED witnesses, their testimony under oath has been submitted.

The only people you can be angry at are democrats for sensationalizing and rushing the process.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Admitted


I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses.



You had them already.

Like an election, you can't stop the process because
you do not like the results.



No. I haven't. No firsthand witnesses. No Bolton, Pompeo, Trump himself, Mulvaney.

Not one. The senate can provide that. The house should have.


But they didn't and that's their job.

You keep screaming about witnesses... the House had 17 OF THEM! The President had NONE. It was a mistrial from the start. That is what you don't understand.

With the 17 witnesses testimony, there has been nothing that incriminates the President or warrants the Senate to step outside the sphere of responsibility in an impeachment trial to finish the House investigation on the fly.

~Namaste


Yes, I'm screaming...the house had 17 of them! Useless ones!

I want firsthand witnesses that the White House blocked.

The Senate can do that. The house should have taken the time to do so!

I just want the whole truth out there. I want firsthand witnesses. Being Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulvaney. Put up Biden if you want. He has zero to do with Trump's actions here but, go ahead. Zero witnesses though? Come on.

I can't make excuses for idiots.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

hahahaha i love your staying power



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Bring everyone in.

I don't get that argument? I want all witnesses so i can know what happened.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: Admitted

hahahaha i love your staying power


Thanks. It's tough man. There are some hardcore Trump people here.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

How many times do courts toss out cases because there is no point in continuing? Those are often trials without witnesses too.

If you have a problem with it, be angry at the House for not bothering to do the job correctly. If they effed it up, that isn't the Senate's problem to fix. The Senate goes on the merits of the case given them, they don't create a new case out of whole cloth.

If the Democrats are so incompetent they cannot come up with a credible case, it's not the Republicans' job to do it for them.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This isn't a trial. It is a Constitutional formality tht required the Senate to hold a HEARING for allegations that woulve obviously been otherwise summarily dismissed

Once again, even if all allegations are true, he did nothing wrong. The Biden business is very sketchy and justice demands an investigation. You alls attitude during the Russia hoax is going to be used against you all big time remember that

He's allowed to investigate crimes. He's allowed to determine all issues of foreign policy. He can fire ambassadors and his employees at will (all executive branch employees)

Congress and the Executive are coequal branches. The courts decide conflicts. Dems refused to go to court. They have no case so they resort to theatrics and temper tantrums

Senates job is to hear evidence collected by the House not to do their job for them. Nothing stopped them from calling these witnesses a ND settling disputes in court. They refused. Therefore they passed the ball to us.

He will be acquitted because the case is not even wrong. It's non-existent



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   
don't know why this one tune is playing over and over again in my head, but

/sings/

*CAN I GET A WITNESS??? CAN I GET A WITNESS? CAN I GET A WITNESS*

(Some kinda Wonderful)


I think it's OP's favorite song.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Admitted

How many times do courts toss out cases because there is no point in continuing? Those are often trials without witnesses too.

If you have a problem with it, be angry at the House for not bothering to do the job correctly. If they effed it up, that isn't the Senate's problem to fix. The Senate goes on the merits of the case given them, they don't create a new case out of whole cloth.

If the Democrats are so incompetent they cannot come up with a credible case, it's not the Republicans' job to do it for them.



I AM angry at the house. This is also a reply to JBurns below this...

They did eff it up. It's not the Senate's problem to fix but it IS their trial. It isn't a thing that can be re-done and I want them to do it right is all.

Which means calling witnesses and getting the facts.

The House failed to do so. So, this is the last chance and they are just ignoring it in favor of party.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

That's a great song. Not my favorite, but absolutely great song.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

It's a waste of time. There's nothing to learn because we have the transcript.

This is yet another attempt to throw shade atthe President which lefties have tried and failed at since day one.

"He's under investigation, there's a chance he can be removed!"

"His impeachment hearing is ongoing, there's a chance he can be removed!"

No, there isn't. It's false hope drummed up by Dems to feed their increasingly rabid and unrealistic base.

Haven't you all learned from the myriad of tough lessons you've been taught? Not one of the lefts efforts have planned out.

Mueller? Russia? Bust.
Stormy stormy stormy hush money? Bust.
Rape fantasy rejects parading in front of cameras? Bust.
Kavanaugh? Bust.
Secret super duper James bond sealed indictments? Bust.

We're keeping track. Archive.org is a great resource to ensure history never forgets the lefts bat # insanity RE this President.

God I'm so disappointed in my old party.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join