A Trial Without Witnesses

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Admitted

Do you think the whistleblower should be a witness?

Yes.

a reply to: Admitted

Biden and his Son was in reference to Corruption.

Just because you're running for President doesn't shield you from investigations based on the premise that a President is trying to interfere with political rivals you dolt, lmfao.

That's the fallback excuse, ignore the corruption and focus on the political soundbite because why not?

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Admitted

Do you think the whistleblower should be a witness?

Yes.

Do you think Schiff should be a witness?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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.

I believe that Ahabster was using a debate tactic otherwise known as:

Reductio ad absurdum is also known as "reducing to an absurdity." It involves characterizing an opposing argument in such a way that it seems to be ridiculous, or the consequences of the position seem ridiculous.

In a futile attempt to try and show the OP how stupid their repeated question of "Why cant we have witnesses" is.

originally posted by: Admitted

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

You sound like James Comey, whining that Robert Mueller failed
because he didn't have enough transparency.

Face it. There is no evidence that condemns President Trump
then, nor now. You claim you want the truth, but the truth
is in front of your face and you refuse to see it.

This OP is nothing more than a harbinger of what is
to come when the Democrats once again hit the
wall in their delusions.

originally posted by: Admitted

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.

Didn’t they get their aid before the due date, if so it wasn’t withheld past the due date, let’s move on shall we.

a reply to: Admitted

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.

So you want the democrats to be able to sidestep legal procedure and precedence?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Admitted

Do you think the whistleblower should be a witness?

Yes.

Do you think Schiff should be a witness?

Yes.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Admitted

Biden and his Son was in reference to Corruption.

Just because you're running for President doesn't shield you from investigations based on the premise that a President is trying to interfere with political rivals you dolt, lmfao.

That's the fallback excuse, ignore the corruption and focus on the political soundbite because why not?

Sure. Investigate him.

But do it through our own Department of Justice and not via a foreign government. Yeah?

And not for a favor? Maybe?

a reply to: Ahabstar

If Trump reads that , game over Trump 2024

a reply to: Admitted

Well, I will say I am surprised.

I thought you just wanted Trump out regardless if he did anything wrong or not.

originally posted by: Admitted

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.

You had the Hosue investigation for that, beyond that is the failings of the Houses ability to govern.

Know your civics.

Lets be honest here:

The House should have would have could have.
The Senate has admitted they are going to run a kangaroo court

How about instead of turning on each other, right, left et al. we really should turn our ire on those entrenched elected politicians ON BOTH SIDES.

Clean house, amend the constitution so that there are strict term limits, campaign contributions are limited, EACH office has an amount the candidates can spend and not a dime more, and that corporations can no longer contribute like a regular person, a non compete once a person terms out (aka no lobbying).

We want people who want to serve then GET OUT. No more career politicians. Pilosi & McConnell et al have raped and pillaged enough.

Then we can get back to our regularly scheduled arguments............

#flushthedctoilet

a reply to: DBCowboy

OP just wants witnesses. He doesn't understand why he cannot have them and he wants them

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.

It's interesting you don't ever bother to think about how the House could have voted to Impeach a president without hearing from these massively important witnesses. Do they just get a pass and in the interest of fairness, we make the senate repair the mistake they made?

a reply to: Admitted

The aid was released before the deadline .

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No. I don't. I think the HoR did a crap job.

I just want to hear witnesses and know the truth. A far cry, I know.

I feel the Senate is blocking witnesses now just out of spite.

a reply to: Admitted

Do you have a problem that Schiff blocked all witnesses in the house inquiry for the president - because there was a lot more of those witnesses than the two or three the Democrats want now.

How is that not a huge problem? It is incredibly hypocritical to dare say the Republicans are performing a cover up for not wanting Bolton to testify - but they aren't for blocking the Whistleblower the Bidens and Schiff.

The Democrat case is so weak, they are the ones asking for new witnesses, the Republicans don't need any to acquit.

a reply to: Admitted

I'm not even quoting the OP because it is so pathetic.

Bernie, Biden, and Warren have how many years in the Senate and what exactly did they accomplish? Over a century of being senators and NOW suddenly everything is Trumps fault? Trump is dividing us?

OP should change their name to Veruca Salt.