Eric Loh

8 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The only buying I have seen is Hunter Biden being paid. That is the only thing that resembles "The Al Capone" days historical reference of yours. 

Paid a pretty reasonable 50k monthly. Didn't see any investigation by the any agencies. However used as a scapegoat by Trump for his personal agenda. 

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Yeah, but Biden didn't just look the other way.  He collected his sizable "consulting" fee as well.

So please tell us what wrongdoing and what crime Hunter committed.  If you have none, you just smearing. 

30 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's over... the dems had their chance. 3 years of litigation, Mueller investigation, no evidence, House trial, no evidence, it's over. Now the dems have to resurrect Hillary Clinton. Clinton will be the nominee and she will lose again. If the American's want Trump out, they will now have to vote him out. The investigation of Trump is over. 

It’s indeed over for democracy and rule of law. Sad day for once great USA. 

A corrupt president that cheat in the election, intimidate, lie and protected by the political system. Putin will be so happy.

7 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

This does not make a lick of sense. Seriously.

Coming from you, I neither care or bother. 

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You avoided answering my question.  But I'm not surprised.  An honest answer would require a painful (for some) shift in perception.

 

In any case, the Republicans weren't decrying the lack of witnesses with first hand knowledge.  They were decrying the fact that none of the Dem witnesses had first hand knowledge, with the exception of Vindman who was on the call and Sondland who spoke with the President.  And since none of the witnesses had first hand knowledge then all they could offer as testimony was their speculations, feelings, suppositions, assumptions, etc.  In other words, none of those witnesses knew anything with certainty.  Yet that's all the Dems had so they were forced to take all of that meaningless testimony and utilize selective portions of it to construct a fabricated narrative which fit the guilty narrative the Dems were after.

 

On the other hand, the Dems refused Republicans their witnesses.  Witnesses who could confirm Biden corruption, thus proving that Trump's request for assistance was justified and was not requested merely to harm a political opponent.  The Democrats refused to allow Trump or the Republicans to make their case.  The Dems have been hellbent on removing Trump by any means necessary since before he took office.  To allow witnesses who could prove Trump's innocence could never be allowed as that would be antithetical to their stated goal.

 

You see, the House impeachment investigation was a sham because it was not a true investigation.  It was an inquisition.  The verdict was predetermined from the start.  A true investigation is one which seeks the truth and nothing but the truth.  There can be no predetermination of guilt or innocence.  The facts must be followed without bias for the truth to be known.  It is painfully obvious that the Democrats did not want truth but only a guilty verdict since, as I said, the entirety of their impeachment effort was for one purpose and one purpose only . . . the removal of a duly elected President of the United States.

 

Just as the House chose to play by rules they controlled the Senate now gets to play by rules they choose.  If Senators feel they have heard enough to dispense a just verdict then hearing from new witnesses is unwarranted.

 

Heap all of your disgust and repulsion on the Democrats.  The Republicans will have none of it.

 

A lot of words but little substance. Next. 

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Republicans in the House claimed the same . . . that procedural precedents in past impeachments were tossed out the window.  Witnesses requested by the Republicans were denied.  None of that needed to happen.  It could have been fair.  Not only that, Nadler denied the Republicans a minority hearing to call their own witnesses, as per House rules.

 

How can you then cry about the Senate refusing to hear new witness and accuse the Republicans of "shirking their duty?"  Please tell me you do not see the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is clear to me that the Reps senators stonewalled witnesses for the House trial while decrying lack of first hand information. Now when they have the chance to clear their doubts by calling those first hand witnesses, they shirk their duty. 
 

Hypocrisy is clear to me when in the past the Reps were parroting Trump’s narrative that there was no quid pro quo and now the whole defense team is changing the narrative that quid pro quo was not impeachable. 
 

The best bs from Alan Dershowitz that said ‘if a president does something by his behavior to help him get elected in the public interest , that can’t be the kind of quid pro quo that result in an impeachment’. He is now admitting quid pro quo took place. Just how hypocritical and low can the Reps get to defend a corrupt President. 

The Reps senators aren’t not fulfilling their part to have witnesses and documents even though the constitution clearly does not limit senate power to perform its own inquiry. Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with the House and the Reps led senate should now use its authority to compel appearances by current and former administration officials. No excuse as precedents have been set by previous senate house to call for witnesses in previous impeachment trial including those of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In refusing new witnesses, the senate Reps are shirking their duty and aiding in a cover-up instigated by Trump. Sad and shameful.