A Trial Without Witnesses

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the truth.

I would love to hear from some too.

The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.

Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.

No offense, but you're trying to approach this through an emotional appeal and quite frankly, that doesn't work in hyper partisan environements, see CNN, MSNBC for examples.

You mimic the same language and it's nauseating.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Surely if all the "evidence" is innuendo, hearsay and subjective interpretation. Witnesses that were there or have evidence can clear up this case and exonerate Trump.

If all the witnesses say, "this never happened." It should be a pretty quick proceeding.

What does Trump have to hide that they don't want witnesses?

All the witnesses in the HOUSE were asked if any of them had any direct evidence of Trump having committed any crime and not a single one held up their hand.

Are you expecting them to change their answer now?

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would think you would want him to. But ok. If you don't care, you don't care.

Why would I care?

This is purely political.

It is an attack from democrats to oust a sitting president.

That's all this is.

So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?

Aid was not withheld, Ukraine received it.

The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?

Yes.

That's what you believe?

Lets look at facts.

Ukraine got their aid.

The president, if he so chooses, can ask any nation a question surrounding corruption.

these two items are facts.

Indisputable.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the truth.

I would love to hear from some too.

The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.

Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.

No offense, but you're trying to approach this through an emotional appeal and quite frankly, that doesn't work in hyper partisan environements, see CNN, MSNBC for examples.

You mimic the same language and it's nauseating.

Honestly, and no offense meant, but I think OP is a child.

a reply to: elDooberino

I'm aware that the house got the witnesses they could get without long court battles.

The White House prevented many from testifying.

Those are who I want to hear from.

They complain about no direct evidence and bar the people with direct knowledge from testifying.

Let's hear them.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Admitted
We have a president on trial without witnesses being allowed to speak.

This is America today.

Do you really want the answers, as in what the Constitution allows for in an impeachment? Or do want to continue to say "why not?", like a toddler when you try to explain to them that they cannot fly like the birds.

Give me the answer to 2+2, but not 4, I don't want to hear 4, give me a real answer

a reply to: Admitted

this is a political event, not a trial. It's structured like a trial, but as happened in the impeachment itself, only one party voted for it.

And please think about the division you speak of. The president is promoting Patriotism, Economic growth, America First, secure borders, and better trade deals to benefit american citizens. If you are against that, and you want to spend one second talking about division, I think it's time to re-prioritize your thoughts.

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Admitted
We have a president on trial without witnesses being allowed to speak.

This is America today.

Do you really want the answers, as in what the Constitution allows for in an impeachment? Or do want to continue to say "why not?", like a toddler when you try to explain to them that they cannot fly like the birds.

Give me the answer to 2+2, but not 4, I don't want to hear 4, give me a real answer

*but why can't I fly? I want to fly!!*

a reply to: Admitted

Looks like the so called witness is a liar going by his Twitter statements, whichever may be the truth, needs to be sorted out first, liars are acceptable to the far right dems but definitely not to the majority of US citizens

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think the OP knows that the evidence is nothing so the OP is more frustrated by the actions of the House than anything else. And why should the Senate aid in the ineptitude of the House?

Fair enough, however, wouldn't mind watching the OP get eviscerated in their own thread for a bit longer.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What if there was 10 years worth of witness testimony that could be called forth? Would everyone retain their office, including Trump until everything was complete? No elections, no new legislation because the Senate can only do impeachment business until the business is done. I mean fair is fair, right? And the House process was all about supposition and assumption so every American could be a witness. I want my voice heard and considered by the Senate on the matter, don’t you? Who cares how long Trump remains in his first term? And remains eligible for a second term.

We must remain fair.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would think you would want him to. But ok. If you don't care, you don't care.

Why would I care?

This is purely political.

It is an attack from democrats to oust a sitting president.

That's all this is.

So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?

Aid was not withheld, Ukraine received it.

The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?

Yes.

That's what you believe?

Lets look at facts.

Ukraine got their aid.

The president, if he so chooses, can ask any nation a question surrounding corruption.

these two items are facts.

Indisputable.

They got their aid AFTER a whistleblower said why it was being withheld.

The president can ask any nation a question surrouding corruption but he didn't. He said ZERO about corruption. Read the transcript, as you like to say. He asked about Biden and his son.

And I don't care about Biden or his son. They can be investigated and burned at the stake...what is wrong here is that the president is using his power to influence a foreign gov't to help his re-election.

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.

Are you a member of the Senate or the HoR? If not then it really doesn't matter what you want.

a reply to: Ahabstar
The house dems and their forced partisan impeachment vote is in no way fair.
Dont even try that.
Fair would have been going to court to get testimony.
That is fair.
Due process.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I've said before, if you wanted the trial to end quickly, have 100 witnesses.

Sanders, Warren and Klobachar would acquit in a heartbeat.

They're losing money not campaigning, and that's all they care about.

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: elDooberino

I'm aware that the house got the witnesses they could get without long court battles.

The White House prevented many from testifying.

Those are who I want to hear from.

They complain about no direct evidence and bar the people with direct knowledge from testifying.

Let's hear them.

Nobody was barred. There is a process to get the witness. They did not use the process therefore they get nothing. Should have used the process.
They didn't want to use it because if they do, then Trump's team can call witnesses. They didn't want that happening.

a reply to: Admitted

Do you think the whistleblower should be a witness?

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: proximo

I think repeating impeachments are a terrible idea. The precedents being set here are atrocious.

Even more so if we don't see all the evidence. The House failed. I don't want the Senate to fail.

Hear witnesses. It's pretty simple.

It is simple.

If the Senate sets the precedent they will do the house's work for them - bringing up impeachment charges becomes trivial.

The senate can do nothing else while the impeachment trial is in session.

In theory all legislation could be blocked using the strategy of repeatedly sending up BS impeachments to the senate.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the truth.

I would love to hear from some too.

The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.

Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.

No offense, but you're trying to approach this through an emotional appeal and quite frankly, that doesn't work in hyper partisan environements, see CNN, MSNBC for examples.

You mimic the same language and it's nauseating.

So hearing the truth from direct witnesses would be too emotional to be credible?

Give me a break.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Admitted
This is a PARTISAN POLITICAL process
Dems rule the house
Gop rules the senate

Were it actually a "fair" process these articles would not have been brought

Why expect more from the gop than the dems?

No. Had Trump not withheld aid from Ukraine for the purpose of getting an investigation into the son of a political rival these articles would not have been brought.

I thought you just said you read the transcript???

Go ahead and quote that part for me then genius.