Battle lines harden over Trump impeachment trial witnesses

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes 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. 

Thanks, that had me laughing so much I almost fell out of my chair.

Nancy having her forehead refinished- classic.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks, that had me laughing so much I almost fell out of my chair.

Nancy having her forehead refinished- classic.

 

You know why Nancy has a spring in her step? It's easier to walk and chew gum when you no longer are burdened by carrying a gavel. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

I thought Trump was already impeached, no?

Depends upon which side you are on.

 

C'mon Nancy, just do it, just send those articles to the senate. They're probably never going to accede to any demands you make re trial Didn't you say it was urgent, a while back?

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends upon which side you are on.

 

C'mon Nancy, just do it, just send those articles to the senate. They're probably never going to accede to any demands you make re trial Didn't you say it was urgent, a while back?

 

It would be fun if Nancy pocket vetoes it and doesn't send them. What a distinguishing place in history she will have. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

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. 

Anyone authorized was allowed in the hearing. Many repubs were there. So enough with the fake news lies.

 

there was no case to prove, it was an investigation. The case is run in the senate.

 

absolutely zero in your post is correct, again.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

You sound like a House Republican.

Well I’m not. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour 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? 

Good to know, the republicans are afraid of the truth. 
 

maga

[Laza 45]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:54 AM, nervona81732 said:

Where did all this Trump hate come from on this forum? 

We don't hate him.. we send him thoughts and prayers..

[elmrfudd]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

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

You mean like they did in the house "investigation"? 

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean like they did in the house "investigation"? 

Going to need an explanation of what you are on about here-keep in my mind my posts have purely been about why the republicans do not want new witnesses called or new evidence heard.

[choff56]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends upon which side you are on.

 

C'mon Nancy, just do it, just send those articles to the senate. They're probably never going to accede to any demands you make re trial Didn't you say it was urgent, a while back?

It's too much fun watching Trump twist in the wind.

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, choff56 said:

It's too much fun watching Trump twist in the wind.

It ispretty humorous having trump go nuts over nancy. He is powerless to do anything about it.

 

Nancy just keeps owning him. That hand clap at state of the union was priceless.

[gamb00ler]

 

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

No, actually it is common sense and reality that have clearly shown the irrational emotional reaction by the left to undo the election 

What you call "common sense" seems to only infect about 43% of voters.  I think that will be considered high for the brand.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[mogandave]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

It ispretty humorous having trump go nuts over nancy. He is powerless to do anything about it.

 

Nancy just keeps owning him. That hand clap at state of the union was priceless.

Not as humorous as you believing it. 
 

 

[Catoholic]

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

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

Only the dem's are scared of new witnesses... The horror of having Joe and Hunter Biden testify would be too much to endure.

[Bluespunk]

17 minutes ago, Catoholic said:

Only the dem's are scared of new witnesses... The horror of having Joe and Hunter Biden testify would be too much to endure.

Still does not answer my question. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/29/2019 at 6:54 PM, choff56 said:

It's too much fun watching Trump twist in the wind.

Doubt it. he's probably having fun by tweeting stupid things and watching the haters go mental.

 

I don't know why this threat is titled "battle lines". A battle implies that one side OR the other can win, but in the senate there is no need for the GOP to do anything it does not want to, ergo there is no battle, given the Dems have zero say in how the senate handles it.

[Sujo]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doubt it. he's probably having fun by tweeting stupid things and watching the haters go mental.

 

I don't know why this threat is titled "battle lines". A battle implies that one side OR the other can win, but in the senate there is no need for the GOP to do anything it does not want to, ergo there is no battle, given the Dems have zero say in how the senate handles it.

Depends if they want to follow the oath they swear before the trial begins.

[Sujo]

20 hours ago, mogandave said:

Not as humorous as you believing it. 
 

 

30 or so twitter posts from trump tends to agree with my view.

[Chivas]

How on earth will Tango man be able to maintain that Suntan whilst doing an extensive stretch in the Monkey House..

[elmrfudd]

On 12/29/2019 at 10:06 AM, Bluespunk said:

Going to need an explanation of what you are on about here-keep in my mind my posts have purely been about why the republicans do not want new witnesses called or new evidence heard.

You mean just like they did in the house investigation? 

[opalred]

you watch /to take the heat away from him /he will start a war somewhere /i think Iran

all his life he has shown there is only one person in the world  /he couldn't care if 1million people were killed /just to take heat from him

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean just like they did in the house investigation? 

Nope, I mean why are they so dead set against new witnesses or evidence. It can’t be they are afraid of losing the trial as they control the senate. 
 

So why the opposition to new evidence and witnesses- that, and that alone, is my question. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Bluespunk

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean just like they did in the house investigation? 

Perhaps you could explain what relevant testimony was not allowed.

[Sujo]

51 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope, I mean why are they so dead set against new witnesses or evidence. It can’t be they are afraid of losing the trial as they control the senate. 
 

So why the opposition to new evidence and witnesses- that, and that alone, is my question. 

Because they will be on record as not wanting to know the truth when it is exposed. They fear that, so they think head in the sand is better option.

 

that way the dumb base will simply say there is no evidence because they did not allow evidence. Which flues in the face of logic, except to them.

 

But reverse it and mention bidens and the saliva starts dripping even when there is no evidence at all when the AG can actually call for it.

 

their minds work in mysterious ways.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nope, I mean why are they so dead set against new witnesses or evidence. It can’t be they are afraid of losing the trial as they control the senate. 

If they have a preordained result, why waste public money and their time having a sham trial?

It doesn't matter whether they do or not anyway, as the opposition will scream either way. If they have a trial it'll be criticised for something or other anyway.

The only result the opposition will be satisfied with, IMO, is Trump convicted and in jail for the rest of his life. I see no reason for the GOP to pander to such a desire. They have nothing to lose by not having a trial and will, IMO, win in November regardless.

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they have a preordained result, why waste public money and their time having a sham trial?

It doesn't matter whether they do or not anyway, as the opposition will scream either way. If they have a trial it'll be criticised for something or other anyway.

The only result the opposition will be satisfied with, IMO, is Trump convicted and in jail for the rest of his life. I see no reason for the GOP to pander to such a desire. They have nothing to lose by not having a trial and will, IMO, win in November regardless.

i wonder why you have you written a post that tries to deflect attention from my question about the republicans attempts to prevent new evidence being introduced into the senate trial...the question was there, but you conveniently left out when you quoted my post. 

 

maga

Edited December 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Your opinion on Trump stops there. It has no weight on other people. Get over it 

Whereas your opinion is weighty indeed! It falls with a big thud.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/31/2019 at 5:07 PM, Bluespunk said:

i wonder why you have you written a post that tries to deflect attention from my question about the republicans attempts to prevent new evidence being introduced into the senate trial...the question was there, but you conveniently left out when you quoted my post. 

 

maga

Because I was only replying to the question I quoted.

What you just posted is something different. I didn't answer it because that question has been answered  previously, though perhaps not specifically quoting you. The same questions keep getting asked over and over and over, and the answer is always the same.