32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

More 45 fan fiction.

Actually the tactic to delay this and to try to pressure some republican senators to vote to change the rules of the trial is showing a lot of promise.

 

Remember to remove takes 2/3 but to change trial rules only needs a simple majority. What exactly are 45 fans afraid of to hear from witnesses like Mulvaney and Bolton? I think we all know. If they really thought the dear leader was clean they would be welcoming them to testify. 

 

 

 

Additionally, they seem to be supported by public opinion

"Poll: Majority of Americans believe top Trump aides should testify

.....71% think he should allow senior administration officials to testify in a likely Senate impeachment trial"

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-white-house-aide-testify-senate-trial-41a51440-efc0-4041-8a93-a41556c81589.html

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

More 45 fan fiction.

Actually the tactic to delay this and to try to pressure some republican senators to vote to change the rules of the trial is showing a lot of promise.

 

Remember to remove takes 2/3 but to change trial rules only needs a simple majority. What exactly are 45 fans afraid of to hear from witnesses like Mulvaney and Bolton? I think we all know. If they really thought the dear leader was clean they would be welcoming them to testify. 

 

 

 

More Trump hater nonsense.  Trump is President of the United States and the election cannot be redone.

 

Look, if Hillary does run, then you get your do over, OK?  Trump vs Clinton rematch.

 

 

Just now, Kelsall said:

More Trump hater nonsense.  Trump is President of the United States and the election cannot be redone.

 

Look, if Hillary does run, then you get your do over, OK?  Trump vs Clinton rematch.

 

 

Strange illogical post.

Maybe try harder?

Nobody is saying he isn't president. 

Nobody Is suggesting redoing the 2016 election.

Impeachment and removal is a legit constitutional process, not a new election. 

Hillary isn't running. Democrats don't want her to run again either.

Again, more 45 fan fiction to suggest that.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

More 45 fan fiction.

Actually the tactic to delay this and to try to pressure some republican senators to vote to change the rules of the trial is showing a lot of promise.

 

Remember to remove takes 2/3 but to change trial rules only needs a simple majority. What exactly are 45 fans afraid of to hear from witnesses like Mulvaney and Bolton? I think we all know. If they really thought the dear leader was clean they would be welcoming them to testify. 

 

 

 

If the witnesses were not needed to impeach the President, why are they needed to convict the President? 
 

It looks more and more like the Senate will go with Chuck Schumer’s argument that a move to dismiss must be voted on. 
 

 

On 12/19/2019 at 8:50 AM, webfact said:

"If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the president's reckless actions make impeachment necessary," Pelosi said.

Except she is not acting now (sending the impeachment documents to the Senate) because she knows she stepped in it and doesn't want to commit to a sure disaster. Anyway, one of her own liberal lawyers indicated that President Trump is not impeached until the documents are sent to the Senate, otherwise its just sits in the House as a pile of of you-know-what.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-donald-trump-impeached-white-house-considers-arguing-no-because-articles-of-impeachment-not-delivered-to-senate/

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s referring to the people in Congress who ranted and whined but failed to offer a shred of evidence against the sworn testimonies presented to Congress.

 

And of course to all those who ranted from the sidelines but refused the offer to give their own sworn testimony.

Perhaps had they been allowed to call their own witnesses they would have offered evidence. 
 

 

Off topic posts and replies about Thai politics have been removed. 

On 12/19/2019 at 10:12 AM, mogandave said:

I think it a good bet that regardless of what rules the Senate offer Nancy will not see them as being fair enough...

 

 

..and I'm sure she will be right..

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Perhaps had they been allowed to call their own witnesses they would have offered evidence. 
 

 

They have been allowed to call their own witnesses, but not the ones who had nothing to testify about what Trump did. They could have called Trump-friendly witnesses such as Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, etc... and they didn't.

What a joke! The only ones they called were either:

- people who had nothing to testify about what Trump did, i.e. the Bidens,

- people already called in before by the Dems, i.e. Sondland.

1 hour ago, candide said:

They have been allowed to call their own witnesses, but not the ones who had nothing to testify about what Trump did. They could have called Trump-friendly witnesses such as Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, etc... and they didn't.

What a joke! The only ones they called were either:

- people who had nothing to testify about what Trump did, i.e. the Bidens,

- people already called in before by the Dems, i.e. Sondland.

 

I understand why the left wantS to protect the Bidens, but why were they disallowed from calling witnesses that had already been called? 
 

They weren’t allowed to cross examine the left’s witnesses, nor were they allowed to recall them.  

 

Do you support the same rules for the Senate trial?

More fake news. The President is not impeached until Articles of Impeachment are submitted to the Senate. This won't happen because Pelosi fears Republican cross examination and the reaction of 2020 voters. 

1 minute ago, simtemple said:

More fake news. The President is not impeached until Articles of Impeachment are submitted to the Senate. This won't happen because Pelosi fears Republican cross examination and the reaction of 2020 voters. 

One opinion writer wrote that but I don't think it's actually correct. He IS impeached already. But this is really academic. Pelosi has never said she won't transmit to the senate. She is only delaying it and for very good reasons. So don't fret (as the president is) about this detail. 

4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Except she is not acting now (sending the impeachment documents to the Senate) because she knows she stepped in it and doesn't want to commit to a sure disaster. Anyway, one of her own liberal lawyers indicated that President Trump is not impeached until the documents are sent to the Senate, otherwise its just sits in the House as a pile of of you-know-what.

Incorrect. Pelosi (the most remarkable and most powerful female politician in American history) is simply DELAYING the transmit for very rational purposes. To use some leverage to try to persuade the senate (only needs a few republican votes) to make the trial more fair, to publicize that the senate republican leader is willing to take an oath of impartiality when he has already gone public that he is totally partial and plans to hold a totally FIXED and RIGGED banana republic style show trial coming to a worthless conclusion of acquittal, and also probably because this is driving 45 psychologically crazy (he wants a quick fake trial) and Pelosi seems to be the only person on the planet of really getting under his skin. 

Henceforth, rather than the shorthand appellation of "45," just call Trump "3." 

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

One opinion writer wrote that but I don't think it's actually correct. He IS impeached already. But this is really academic. Pelosi has never said she won't transmit to the senate. She is only delaying it and for very good reasons. So don't fret (as the president is) about this detail. 

There is also an argument that the as the Constitution does not compel or even address the House sending it up, that impeachment is complete and it is already before the Senate and they can take it up immediately if they choose. 
 

The Constitution (apparently) requires nothing further from the House for the impeachment or the trial, although the House is permitted to act as the prosecution in the trial. 

Edited December 21, 20196 yr by mogandave
WW

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

One opinion writer wrote that but I don't think it's actually correct. He IS impeached already. But this is really academic. Pelosi has never said she won't transmit to the senate. She is only delaying it and for very good reasons. So don't fret (as the president is) about this detail. 

Depends on what one's definition of "IS" is. 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I understand why the left wantS to protect the Bidens, but why were they disallowed from calling witnesses that had already been called? 
 

They weren’t allowed to cross examine the left’s witnesses, nor were they allowed to recall them.  

 

Do you support the same rules for the Senate trial?

About the Bidens, it has been already explained to you. 

About the second part of your post, it looks like no witnesses called by the GOP have been allowed.  The three 'true' witnesses on their list have testified. Didn't you notice it?

29 minutes ago, candide said:

About the Bidens, it has been already explained to you. 

About the second part of your post, it looks like no witnesses called by the GOP have been allowed.  The three 'true' witnesses on their list have testified. Didn't you notice it?

That’s what I thought, thanks.

 

So you support the same rules for the trial (assuming there is one), yes? 

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

That’s what I thought, thanks.

 

So you support the same rules for the trial (assuming there is one), yes? 

I agree with the same rules that the Dems applied: only witnesses that have possibly witnessed something should be allowed to testify, I.e. they have been in some way involved in the QPQ, have possibly seen, heard something about it, etc.... And the minority is allowed to call them.

23 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Looks like a joke to me, but if you think it promotes your agenda, you run with it.

Now that he is, and a sick and twisted one at that.

32 minutes ago, candide said:

I agree with the same rules that the Dems applied: only witnesses that have possibly witnessed something should be allowed to testify, I.e. they have been in some way involved in the QPQ, have possibly seen, heard something about it, etc.... And the minority is allowed to call them.

Exactly, and Mitch McConnell will do Adam Schiff’s job and decide who was able to see and hear what. The left can call anyone he approves, and ask them anything he thinks is appropriate.  
 

Perfect 

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Exactly, and Mitch McConnell will do Adam Schiff’s job and decide who was able to see and hear what. The left can call anyone he approves, and ask them anything he thinks is appropriate.  
 

Perfect 

I see the storming, shouting and complaining by the Reps in the House to demand due process and transparency are just pantomime. They really don’t want the see and hear the truth. 

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Exactly, and Mitch McConnell will do Adam Schiff’s job and decide who was able to see and hear what. The left can call anyone he approves, and ask them anything he thinks is appropriate.  
 

Perfect 

Provided the rule is applied fairly (witnesses who have possibly witnessed something about the QPQ are allowed to testify), which is what Schiff did.

So if the rule is applied in the same way, Dems should be allowed to call Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc... They have first hand information about the alledged QPQ, right?

Edited December 21, 20196 yr by candide

58 minutes ago, candide said:

Provided the rule is applied fairly (witnesses who have possibly witnessed something about the QPQ are allowed to testify), which is what Schiff did.

So if the rule is applied in the same way, Dems should be allowed to call Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, etc... They have first hand information about the alledged QPQ, right?

Absolutely. The left should be able to call anyone they want, and ask them anything they want, as long as the witnesses are approved and the questions appropriate.

 

I would  go a step further in the interest of fairness and allow the Senate to select any Senator they like to be in charge. It doesn’t have to be Mitch McConnell, or even a Republican for that matter. I could end up being Chuck Schumer for all I know. 
 

Finally, any Senator still running in the next election should be disallowed from participating as it would be a clear conflict of interest. There is also the issue of “perceived” bias. so while you and I both know the Democrat candidates to be of the utmost integrity, the public might see them as being completely impartial, given they’re running against Trump.  
 

Agree? 

Posts containing trolling representations of POTUS have been removed as well as the replies.

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Absolutely. The left should be able to call anyone they want, and ask them anything they want, as long as the witnesses are approved and the questions appropriate.

As long as the decision rule followed for approving witnesses is fair and makes sense, so that any witness who has possibly witnessed something about the QPQ would be allowed to testify, as was already the case during the impeachment investigation.

 

As for your last suggestion, it would also be necessary to also disallow Republican senators as they would also not be considered as impartial. Nearly no one would be left, so it's not a practical option.

 

By the way, you blame the Dems about the rules followed during the investigation. I forgot to remind you that they have been voted by a Republican house in 2015 in order to make it easier for them to investigate the WH. Before that change, the minority had more say. You should blame the GOP instead.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

As long as the decision rule followed for approving witnesses is fair and makes sense, so that any witness who has possibly witnessed something about the QPQ would be allowed to testify, as was already the case during the impeachment investigation.

 

Witnessed or been party to or can provide insight on.

 

 

5 minutes ago, candide said:

 

As for your last suggestion, it would also be necessary to also disallow Republican senators as they would also not be considered as impartial. Nearly no one would be left, so it's not a practical option.

 

How many Senators are running against Trump in the next election? How would nearly no one be left? 

 

5 minutes ago, candide said:

 

By the way, you blame the Dems about the rules followed during the investigation. I forgot to remind you that they have been voted by a Republican house in 2015 in order to make it easier for them to investigate the WH. Before that change, the minority had more say. You should blame the GOP instead.

I don’t blame the left got the rules, the rules are find, it’s Adam Schiff’s application of the rules I didn’t like.

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Witnessed or been party to or can provide insight on.

 

 

 

How many Senators are running against Trump in the next election? How would nearly no one be left? 

 

I don’t blame the left got the rules, the rules are find, it’s Adam Schiff’s application of the rules I didn’t like.

It depends how you define "provide insights".

 

As the decision also includes the possibility of clearing Trump, having an alledged anti-Trump or pro-Trump bias is equally biased.  There would probably only be 4 Republican Senators left.

 

I have the reverse opinion: I am not so sure about the rules voted by the Republicans but I guess it can be discussed. The old rule had some drawbacks too, I guess. I like the way they have been been applied by Schiff. 

The case is falling apart and she don't know what to do.  That's why she's not sending the articles to the Senate.