Battle lines harden over Trump impeachment trial witnesses

[Cryingdick]

Just now, candide said:

So if nobody knows, why call him? 

 

Maybe somebody knows things we here on TV don't know. It isn't up to me and you. That would be up to the senate. However this is all partisan maneuvering and winning and losing. The name of the game is to win by any means necessary and let the losing side cry.

 

The ultimate result will be no removal at the end of the day. The dems had their chance to sling mud and made a huge tactical blunder not going to the courts. They can I suppose toss these articles out and draft new ones and try again. 

[candide]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

 

Maybe somebody knows things we here on TV don't know. It isn't up to me and you. That would be up to the senate. However this is all partisan maneuvering and winning and losing. The name of the game is to win by any means necessary and let the losing side cry.

 

The ultimate result will be no removal at the end of the day. The dems had their chance to sling mud and made a huge tactical blunder not going to the courts. They can I suppose toss these articles out and draft new ones and try again. 

Come on! We all know why they want to call him! It has nothing to do with what he would be able to testify about Trump.

 

That's ridiculous. Republicans don't want to call people who surely are knowledgeable about what Trump did. However they want to call people who are likely not to know anything, just in case they may by chance know something.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Come on! We all know why they want to call him! It has nothing to do with what he would be able to testify about Trump.

 

That's ridiculous. Republicans don't want to call people who surely are knowledgeable about what Trump did. However they want to call people who are likely not to know anything, just in case they may by chance know something.

 

 I overheard Biden talking about Ukraine on the phone. He needs to testify. The dems limited witnesses in the house, it's fair the senate does the same thing.

 

Anyway I am done talking in circles. 

[Tug]

This is about trump using the office of the presidency to slander a rival not about what Biden did or dident do that’s why it’s not nessary or relevant that joe testifies this is about trump undermining our constitution and his dereliction of his duty to protect it no more no less

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

This is about trump using the office of the presidency to slander a rival not about what Biden did or dident do that’s why it’s not nessary or relevant that joe testifies this is about trump undermining our constitution and his dereliction of his duty to protect it no more no less

 

I thought it was abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Maybe you could email Pelosi and add dereliction of duty and undermining the constitution and see if it sticks. 

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

 I overheard Biden talking about Ukraine on the phone. He needs to testify. The dems limited witnesses in the house, it's fair the senate does the same thing.

 

Anyway I am done talking in circles. 

So what if biden talked to ukraine on the phone. Whats that got to do with what trump did.

 

Nothing but deflection.

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, Tug said:

This is about trump using the office of the presidency to slander a rival not about what Biden did or dident do that’s why it’s not nessary or relevant that joe testifies this is about trump undermining our constitution and his dereliction of his duty to protect it no more no less

Just as a reminder the House Intelligence committee 71 times requested further information during their investigation, not one request was complied with by the trump administration. trump and his sycophants are doubling down with misinformation in order to derail the impeachment process. IMO this fact alone makes trump guilty of organised systemic obstruction, but we know the Senate will not comply with Constitutional process thereby mocking the Constitution. Personally I am stunned that US citizens still support trump.

Edited December 28, 2019 by simple1

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Just as a reminder the House Intelligence committee 71 times requested further information during their investigation, not one request was complied with by the trump administration. trump and his sycophants are doubling down with misinformation in order to derail the impeachment process. IMO this fact alone makes trump guilty of organised systemic obstruction, but we know the Senate will not comply with Constitutional process thereby mocking the Constitution. Personally I am stunned that US citizens still support trump.

 

Well if the dems ran somebody that didn't want to systematically destroy the wealth many have worked hard year after year to achieve maybe it would be different. 

[Sujo]

41 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well if the dems ran somebody that didn't want to systematically destroy the wealth many have worked hard year after year to achieve maybe it would be different. 

Which has nothing to do with this thread or what trump did. 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which has nothing to do with this thread or what trump did. 

 

Well forgive me if somebody wondered why people support Trump in this thread. Maybe go breathe down their neck. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Cryingdick

[stevenl]

3 hours 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 ).

Doesn't make sense to counter those claims with 'republicans will be obliterated' as per my post. Sorry to see you did not read properly, and are just doing your usual jumping in.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

 I overheard Biden talking about Ukraine on the phone. He needs to testify. The dems limited witnesses in the house, it's fair the senate does the same thing.

 

Anyway I am done talking in circles. 

The house was 'the grand jury', the senate is 'the trial', in this case with a jury which has declared innocence already before trial begins. Your comparison is plain and simply false.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well forgive me if somebody wondered why people support Trump in this thread. Maybe go breathe down their neck. 

There is no good reason or logic to why anyone supports trump.

 

Just because a person does not like the dems doesnt mean they have to support trump, or anyone at all. I dont like the dems but that doesnt mean i support trump. I would never vote for hilary, or trump.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The house was 'the grand jury', the senate is 'the trial', in this case with a jury which has declared innocence already before trial begins. Your comparison is plain and simply false.

The grand jury had already declared his guilt before. By god it's the same thing on both sides. The only difference is your side had its turn and now the ball is in the hands of the GOP. Their chamber their rules.

 

It is nothing more than a partisan affair and the senate feels that no further circus needs to be held. The dems knowing they basically lost their opportunity are crying. They controlled every movement of the house proceedings. They do not get to dictate to the senate how the trial is run. 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The house was 'the grand jury', the senate is 'the trial', in this case with a jury which has declared innocence already before trial begins. Your comparison is plain and simply false.

LOL. Hadn't the Dems been saying for three years that Trump was "guilty" of something bad that deserved impeachment. Remember that congresswoman that used to shout "impeach 45" all the time? Isn't that declaring the outcome before the investigation began?

IMO the Dems went into the investigation looking for something to fit their already decided outcome. They were, IMO not going to accept anything that might have proven Trump was not guilty of something they could impeach him on. Kangaroos come to mind.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Hadn't the Dems been saying for three years that Trump was "guilty" of something bad that deserved impeachment. Remember that congresswoman that used to shout "impeach 45" all the time? Isn't that declaring the outcome before the investigation began?

IMO the Dems went into the investigation looking for something to fit their already decided outcome. They were, IMO not going to accept anything that might have proven Trump was not guilty of something they could impeach him on. Kangaroos come to mind.

 

Yeah. Now it's all about what's fair when they were going to impeach the mother%$#@ker. Before any hearings were held any notion that the house was the grand jury is comical at best. 

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The grand jury had already declared his guilt before. By god it's the same thing on both sides. The only difference is your side had its turn and now the ball is in the hands of the GOP. Their chamber their rules.

 

It is nothing more than a partisan affair and the senate feels that no further circus needs to be held. The dems knowing they basically lost their opportunity are crying. They controlled every movement of the house proceedings. They do not get to dictate to the senate how the trial is run. 

 

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Hadn't the Dems been saying for three years that Trump was "guilty" of something bad that deserved impeachment. Remember that congresswoman that used to shout "impeach 45" all the time? Isn't that declaring the outcome before the investigation began?

IMO the Dems went into the investigation looking for something to fit their already decided outcome. They were, IMO not going to accept anything that might have proven Trump was not guilty of something they could impeach him on. Kangaroos come to mind.

 

15 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Yeah. Now it's all about what's fair when they were going to impeach the mother%$#@ker. Before any hearings were held any notion that the house was the grand jury is comical at best. 

Don't agree with that, but even you're not giving any arguments why it should not be a proper hearing with the people who were involved.

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is no good reason or logic to why anyone supports trump.

 

Just because a person does not like the dems doesnt mean they have to support trump, or anyone at all. I dont like the dems but that doesnt mean i support trump. I would never vote for hilary, or trump.

Given the GOP seems to have decided that Trump is the candidate next year, a vote for anyone else than Trump would likely see one of the Dems win, which is why, IMO, many will vote for him, whether they support him or not.

I am unable to understand why anyone in middle America would vote for Warren or Biden other than to defeat Trump, as neither seem to have any ideas that help the mid western voter.

[mogandave]

33 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I would never vote for hilary, or trump.

So you sat out the last election?

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Don't agree with that, but even you're not giving any arguments why it should not be a proper hearing with the people who were involved.

Was the impeachment not supposed to be a proper hearing?

 

What was the rush? Why could the left not go through the process of getting the witnesses they wanted? They seem to have plenty of time now.

 

Why did they not have an investigation before the hearing? Again, why the rush?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

 

 

Don't agree with that, but even you're not giving any arguments why it should not be a proper hearing with the people who were involved.

Why would I support doing anything that might, however slight that chance would be, get Trump convicted?

Surely you understand that I would not be wanting to remove the only person, IMO, that stands between America doing well ( and if America does well, other western countries do well ), and the doom, IMO, of Democrat policies for the USA and the western world.

Once the articles of impeachment get to the senate, IF they ever get there, the senate does not HAVE to have a hearing, and that'd be fine with me.

[TopDeadSenter]

Just now, mogandave said:

Was the impeachment not supposed to be a proper hearing?

 

What was the rush? Why could the left not go through the process of getting the witnesses they wanted? They seem to have plenty of time now.

 

Why did they not have an investigation before the hearing? Again, why the rush?

 

Allow me to answer this one for him.

 

The rush was because every day Trump remains POTUS means a new all time stock record high, all time minority employment rates, more hope, more optimism, more respect on the international stage, and further unwinding of the legacy of nanny state control and public divisiveness left by 44. Which meant more MSNBC and CNN viewers realizing they have been conned and switching to be Republican supporters. This is why there was a mad stampede for the dems to ram this hoax through the house, but now they are in a right pickle.

 

 

[Cryingdick]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

 

Don't agree with that, but even you're not giving any arguments why it should not be a proper hearing with the people who were involved.

 

Because the 'grand jury' was poisoned and to entertain the farce any longer is a counter productive use of the senate's time. Can you imagine a grand jury being picked and one by one half of them say they thing the accused is guilty. That's why it needs to end now. 

 

 

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

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

You sound like a House Republican.

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why would I support doing anything that might, however slight that chance would be, get Trump convicted?

Surely you understand that I would not be wanting to remove the only person, IMO, that stands between America doing well ( and if America does well, other western countries do well ), and the doom, IMO, of Democrat policies for the USA and the western world.

Once the articles of impeachment get to the senate, IF they ever get there, the senate does not HAVE to have a hearing, and that'd be fine with me.

 

Any decent lawyer would say even to an innocent man if the matter is dropped let it be. I can have it quashed and you get re-elected. Why would any rep want anything else. 

 

That's just the way it is. You don't take chances when you are winning and hopefully Trump will let the matter go because he is the one that seems hot to trot.

 

Then again maybe Trump knows something we don't. It wouldn't be that hard. lol

Edited December 29, 2019 by Cryingdick

[mogandave]

2 hours 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. 

Any number of things could come out in testimony related or unrelated that could hurt the President or others. 
 

Yes, Republicans want yo protect the President and the party, just like Democrats want to protect the Joe Biden and the the party. 
 

There is no benefit for Republicans to call witnesses that could hurt the President. 
 

Why is that difficult to understand? 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Any number of things could come out in testimony related or unrelated that could hurt the President or others. 
 

Yes, Republicans want yo protect the President and the party, just like Democrats want to protect the Joe Biden and the the party. 
 

There is no benefit for Republicans to call witnesses that could hurt the President. 
 

Why is that difficult to understand? 

It's not difficult to understand at all. Nor is it difficult to understand why it is so hard for Republicans to acknowledge.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

So what if biden talked to ukraine on the phone. Whats that got to do with what trump did.

 

Nothing but deflection.

I talked to someone that was on the call as well. They told me Biden and Schiff were conspiring with Ukraine to frame Trump. 
 

Nancy was supposed to be on the call, but apparently she was having her forehead refinished. 

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

trump and his sycophants are doubling down with misinformation in order to derail the impeachment process.

I thought Trump was already impeached, no?

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

I talked to someone that was on the call as well. They told me Biden and Schiff were conspiring with Ukraine to frame Trump. 
 

Nancy was supposed to be on the call, but apparently she was having her forehead refinished. 

 

Let's have some hearings in the basement and not allow anybody inside. God knows there would be hell to pay if somebody actually attempted to google whistleblower. After that we will send it to a grand jury of people we know are not impartial jurors. 

 

When we fail to prove our case we can improvise new articles, not seek judicial oversight in accordance with the rules provided as they pertain to calling witnesses. Hold on a second I have a conference call from Putin.