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.
trump wins again!
That's fair.
Sure. Everything is OK
Geez. I'm really looking forward to the next day with Trumps legal defense high on Bolivian Marching Powder. Did anyone else catch that as well? Kinda fitting, innit?
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody
None of that stops the senate from calling witnesses if they want.
They have the authority to do so.
They are choosing not to. Which in my opinion is the same as telling me I don't need to hear it.
Your ok with that I am not.
hard to drain a swamp when under constant investigation, no?
that just your opinion or you have some sort of evidence of this?
thanks in advance!
Yeah. Nobody saw that coming
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme
They add witnesses during a trial all the time.
were this an actual judicial or criminal trial you may be right
this is not
as you know
so once again you are wrong
typical
originally posted by: Pyle
Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?
Schumer shoots down GOP proposal to swap Bolton-for-Biden testimony trade
Democrats on Tuesday sharply criticized a plan suggested by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) that would effectively involve a witness trade in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, giving each party the chance to call one witness.
[...]
They say there are no witnesses—even as they stonewall witnesses—and that if there were credible evidence, they might remove Trump. When witnesses and credible evidence emerge, they retort, even so, there has been no crime—and even if there has been a crime, there is no obligation to remove Trump. When crimes are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they argue that Trump’s targets deserved scrutiny, and therefore the crime was justified.
It is enough to confuse us all. Which is precisely the point. Trump’s fervent defenders are assuming that by sheer force of will and sanctimonious protests against a legitimate constitutional process, they will wear down the American people, who may only hear each argument in isolation. Taken as a whole, the Republican defense of Trump is so illogical, it is insulting to the public.
While the GOP may indeed preserve Trump’s tenure through their death grip on a slim Senate majority, history books will not be kind to the deceit they have displayed and the fools they have made of themselves.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Admitted
Why on earth would we not have witnesses?
Why?
Because they have negative things to say about the President?
Perhaps due to the fact that, thus far the, 'evidence,' has all been innuendo, hearsay, and subjective interpretation?
The House has not made a substantiated case, why would you want to have witnesses in a case in which the original allegations are baseless?
originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
If that as the case why did house gop members get to question them during depositions and hearings? Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
If that as the case why did house gop members get to question them during depositions and hearings? Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses while the GOP pushing for NO witnesses at all?
My concern is that without witnesses history will see this as a sham trial.
It's one thing for trump to win, but he needs to be seen to have won in a clear and transparent way otherwise he will be declared guilty the very next time a democrat gets into office. There has to be no room for doubt no procedural loopholes, nothing that can be taken out of context.
Bring witnesses in and hear what they have to say, if there is no merit to it then history will say justice was done.
originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Why are the House manegers and senate democrats pushing for BOTH SIDES to be able to have witnesses ...