4 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Impeachable offenses are all the Mueller could find and he stated that he could not do anything about them because of DOJ policy and it was the job of Congress to remedy what he found via impeachment

 

But then again you would have to read the Mueller report to know that, but like most including Congress,  you probably haven't bothered 

 

here for your education:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html

 

The lines are so far out that it is no longer about being fair. It isn't about the law anymore it is about winning or losing. Mitch has said the senate is prejudicial. The house wasn't impartial about finding the truth. 

 

Oddly enough the checks and balances the founding fathers laid forth still stand hundreds of years later.

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The lines are so far out that it is no longer about being fair. It isn't about the law anymore it is about winning or losing. Mitch has said the senate is prejudicial. The house wasn't impartial about finding the truth. 

 

Oddly enough the checks and balances the founding fathers laid forth still stand hundreds of years later.

How was the house not impartial. They called witnesses and questioned them. Funny you mention finding the truth when trump is obstructing congress doing just that.

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How was the house not impartial. They called witnesses and questioned them. Funny you mention finding the truth when trump is obstructing congress doing just that.

You are so far off I won't pretend engage you at this point. It isn't my job to argue these days. Trump will win and the dems will lose. There is very little left to argue about. good luck you will need it, I am in a state of prayerfulness.

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

You are so far off I won't pretend engage you at this point. It isn't my job to argue these days. Trump will win and the dems will lose. There is very little left to argue about. good luck you will need it, I am in a state of prayerfulness.

As expected. You got nothing except a wish for trump to win. Fair enough.

3 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Impeachable offenses are all the Mueller could find and he stated that he could not do anything about them because of DOJ policy and it was the job of Congress to remedy what he found via impeachment

 

But then again you would have to read the Mueller report to know that, but like most including Congress,  you probably haven't bothered 

 

here for your education:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html

Yes, what with all the crimes Mueller found, it begs the question: Why was he not impeached six months ago? 
 

Or: Why were none of the countless crimes included in the almost-a-impeachment? 
 

Maybe Adam Schiff feels sorry for Trump, or maybe just maybe Nancy is in cahoots with Mitch, Putin and the Donald....

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

You are so far off I won't pretend engage you at this point. It isn't my job to argue these days. Trump will win and the dems will lose. There is very little left to argue about. good luck you will need it, I am in a state of prayerfulness.

Why all the predictions in posts, just the facts are enough for a discussion and forming opinions. 'Trump will win my a landslide in 2020', 'the republicans will be obliterated', etc., all add nothing.

On 12/23/2019 at 5:30 AM, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

Nothing to do with "scared" and everything to do with process and the "burden of proof" and presumption of innocence. Trump needs to prove nothing, it's the house and lying Schiff that has the burden to prove the articles of impeachment, which they cannot. Case closed.

42 minutes ago, i84teen said:

Nothing to do with "scared" and everything to do with process and the "burden of proof" and presumption of innocence. Trump needs to prove nothing, it's the house and lying Schiff that has the burden to prove the articles of impeachment, which they cannot. Case closed.

Nah, they’re scared.
 

However if you truly believe that it is incumbent upon the Democrats to prove the case, you must support the calling of witnesses to allow this to happen.  
 

maga

On 12/28/2019 at 2:08 AM, HuskerDo said:

No more career politicians in the White House would be a lovely thing. 

Perhaps they could have a constitutional amendment that no career politician is allowed as president. Limiting all FEDERAL politicians to two terms would serve to stop at least some of the corruption.

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nah, they’re scared.
 

However if you truly believe that it is incumbent upon the Democrats to prove the case, you must support the calling of witnesses to allow this to happen.  
 

maga

Dems have had their chance. Now they have to live with a senate that doesn't play by their rules taking the process over.

Nothing to fear.

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why all the predictions in posts, just the facts are enough for a discussion and forming opinions. 'Trump will win my a landslide in 2020', 'the republicans will be obliterated', etc., all add nothing.

It's just to balance out all the predictions that Trump will be convicted, Trump will be jailed, Trump will ( insert choice of whatever bad things Trump will receive, according to those that dislike him ).

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Dems have had their chance. Now they have to live with a senate that doesn't play by their rules taking the process over.

Nothing to fear.

If they have nothing to fear, then no reason to oppose witnesses. 

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

No. Burden of proof would be in the'coury case', therefore the Senate. So that is where witnesses, by 'prosecution' and 'defense' should be called.

Witnesses should have been called before ending the house process. Now that they have finished, they have no say what happens anymore, unless they reopen the hearings.

If Nancy ever gets around to sending it to the senate it is entirely up to the senate to do whatever they choose, or don't choose to do, but you know that, don't you?

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's just to balance out all the predictions that Trump will be convicted, Trump will be jailed, Trump will ( insert choice of whatever bad things Trump will receive, according to those that dislike him ).

 

The predictions get on their nerves because they are likely to be true. Nobody likes to be beat and told well ahead of time that they will be beat, why they will be beat and how they will be beat. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

If they have nothing to fear, then no reason to oppose witnesses. 

 

Seems good old Joe won't honor any subpoenas. 

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If they have nothing to fear, then no reason to oppose witnesses. 

 

Not going to reply to any more of the same repetitious posts. 

 

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by thaibeachlovers

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Witnesses should have been called before ending the house process. Now that they have finished, they have no say what happens anymore, unless they reopen the hearings.

If Nancy ever gets around to sending it to the senate it is entirely up to the senate to do whatever they choose, or don't choose to do, but you know that, don't you?

 

As I have said and probably others as well the house needed to seek remedy with the courts should they have wanted further witnesses. They waived that right and moved forward. No Biden is crying about how he won't testify so it is the same thing on either side.

 

It's time to quit the charade. I just love how smug Mitch is being about the whole thing. He seems to be relishing it.

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

I just love how smug Mitch is being about the whole thing. He seems to be relishing it.

Wouldn't you be in his position? Payback time for the past 3 years of Trump bad, Trump bad.

29 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Seems good old Joe won't honor any subpoenas. 

How does that relate to my post?

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Not going to reply to any more of the same repetitious posts. 

 

Good to know. 

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

34 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

How does that relate to my post?

 

About witnesses and how the dems should call more or if more should be called etc. I think Biden's unwillingness to participate shows indeed no more witnesses are needed.

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

About witnesses and how the dems should call more or if more should be called etc. I think Biden's unwillingness to participate shows indeed no more witnesses are needed.

Biden’s willingness time appear or not has nothing to do with whether new witnesses should be called or not. If there is further evidence it should be presented. 
 

The republicans should have nothing to worry about, after all they do control the senate. 
 

 

Got to wonder why they are so dead set against new evidence being shown...surely they aren’t worried about it being revealed. 

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by Bluespunk

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Biden’s willingness time appear or not has nothing to do with whether new witnesses should be called or not. If there is further evidence it should be presented. 
 

The republicans should have nothing to worry about, after all they do control the senate. 
 

 

Got to wonder why they are so dead set against new evidence being shown...

 

The onus was on the dems to seek remedy with the courts if they felt Trump wasn't entitled to executive privilege. They didn't go through the process and aren't entitled for a do over in the senate. The senate controls the process what makes you think they need to do anything the house demands? This was never about the truth.

 

If Pelosi doesn't;t send the articles it's a moot issue anyway.

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The onus was on the dems to seek remedy with the courts if they felt Trump wasn't entitled to executive privilege. They didn't go through the process and aren't entitled for a do over in the senate. The senate controls the process what makes you think they need to do anything the house demands? This was never about the truth.

 

If Pelosi doesn't;t send the articles it's a moot issue anyway.

“This was never about the truth”

 

Ah, so the republicans are trying to avoid the truth coming out. 

 

maga

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

“This was never about the truth”

 

Ah, so the republicans are trying to avoid the truth coming out. 

 

maga

 

The dems tried to twist the truth every which way they could. The don't get ram their perversion of the truth down the senates throat. This was about removing Trump not the truth. As Pelosi said they have been trying for 2 years. Anyway this thread has lasted longer than the senate trial should one even be staged.

 

Yes we can.

Edited December 28, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

About witnesses and how the dems should call more or if more should be called etc. I think Biden's unwillingness to participate shows indeed no more witnesses are needed.

Why that? Does Biden know about what Trump did between March 2019 and September 2019?

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Why that? Does Biden know about what Trump did between March 2019 and September 2019?

 

Nobody knows that. He said he would refuse to testify. As such just a vote is needed if witnesses won't testify. Trump will just say exec privilege again should they call Bolton or whoever. It's game over now. 

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The dems tried to twist the truth every which way they could. The don't get ram their perversion of the truth down the senates throat. This was about removing Trump not the truth. As Pelosi said they have been trying for 2 years. Anyway this thread has lasted longer than the senate trial should one even be staged.

 

Yes we can.

All very interesting but really nothing to do with my wondering why the republicans don’t want new evidence presented. 
 

It may we’ll be they dislike the truth coming out but that is no reason to refuse to hear new evidence. 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

All very interesting but really nothing to do with my wondering why the republicans don’t want new evidence presented. 
 

It may we’ll be they dislike the truth coming out but that is no reason to refuse to hear new evidence. 

 

That might be. I guess we will never know.

Just now, Cryingdick said:

 

Nobody knows that. He said he would refuse to testify. As such just a vote is needed if witnesses won't testify. Trump will just say exec privilege again should they call Bolton or whoever. It's game over now. 

So if nobody knows, why call him?