6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

in your inconsequential opinion.

 

many Americans know Joe B is dirty as hell...they want to see what's up with the guy.

 

Simply entering the race as a candidate for your party's nomination does not grant immunity

or scrub past potential crimes clean. Get educated.

If there is any evidence then Biden should be prosecuted. Is anybody holding back the American judiciary?

And if the alleged crimes happend in other countries, including Ukraine, then those authorities in those countries should prosecute. And if Americans want to help them with that and/or initiate something like that then I am sure there are official procedures where i.e. the justice department from the USA would officially request something from the justice department in country xyz. Did that happen? If not, why not?

 

It is not the job of the president to ask another PM for a favor to announce and investigation.

 

Biden's alleged corruption is independent of what Trump did. Investigate Biden for what he did. And do the same with Trump. And one has nothing to do with the other.

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It is not the job of the president to ask another PM for a favor to announce and investigation.

I have the historically and constituionally supportable opposite position as to any Presidents power over all Federal Law Enforcement matters. But no mind, its movie night since the bangkok pollution is too bad to go out

30 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The House could have taken him to court to compel the witnesses to testify, but instead they have (apparently) put it before the Senate where they have no power to take him to court or demand anything. 
 

How does that stop him from “rigging” the election? 
 

 

 

Thanks for making my point with donalds obstructing it would take  a year or longer to get a judgment ergo obstruction ergo rigging the election appreciat the help thanks!

 It is funny how the republicans want to use the same rules for the trial in the Senate where they hold the majority, as with Clinton but did not want to use the same rules at the hearings in the House where they did not.

 

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Why did the house not have time to hear the witnesses?

Because Trump ordered them NOT to appear against him.

44 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Here are your detailed answers. I could quote from that and from many articles. But below are clear answers with lots of details. Those answers are a lot better and anything I could write. And they are counterchecked and approved by many people.

 

Is there any reason Congress hasn't enforced their subpoena power over witnesses?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48965/is-there-any-reason-congress-hasnt-enforced-their-subpoena-power-over-witnesses

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, no need to post a link to someone else’s opinion.

23 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, no need to post a link to someone else’s opinion.

So again you have no response.

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If there is any evidence then Biden should be prosecuted. Is anybody holding back the American judiciary?

 

You don't prosecute someone before conducting an investigation.

Thats what Trump was in the process of doing and spooked all the crooks

with their hand in the Ukraine piggybank. He also told Z that Mr Barr will be following up.

Mr Barr represents American judiciary in case ur unaware,

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

If you don’t know, just say you don’t know, no need to post a link to someone else’s opinion.

You are really getting on my nerves. Can you read? Do you want an answer? Then read!

 

If someone, or in above case, a couple of people, explained something in detail, why should I explain it again?

But I guess that is one of the reason why you support Trump and I don't. I learn from the knowledge of other people, you obviously don't do that.

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

I have the historically and constituionally supportable opposite position as to any Presidents power over all Federal Law Enforcement matters. But no mind, its movie night since the bangkok pollution is too bad to go out

Which federal law did he enforce?

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You don't prosecute someone before conducting an investigation.

Thats what Trump was in the process of doing and spooked all the crooks

with their hand in the Ukraine piggybank. He also told Z that Mr Barr will be following up.

Mr Barr represents American judiciary in case ur unaware,

There was no investigation either. Why is it that Trump and Republicans only want a show, and never want to start an official investigation into the Bidens?

 

The DOJ and Barr have stated they have not been asked to start an official investigation. The Ukraine Justice Ministry have stated they never got any official request.

The official process is very clear: the DOJ opens an investigation and then can ask for Ukraine's collaboration according to the agreement signed by both countries. Instead of that, Trump chose a crooked way.

 

So all we have is Trump committing an abuse of power by trying to discredit Biden with a debunked conspiracy theory. And also trying to whitewash the Russians with another ridiculous DNC server conspiracy theory.

Not answering questions, or letting others answer questions for years of legitimate questions, one can come to a sixth graders conclusion-got something to hide-in addition to hundreds of outright lies and conspiracy theories-ain’t no bigley nothing burger

Everything is a conspiracy against poor little Donny.  Please send the sixth grader home, and get an adult to run the country 

 

 

20 hours ago, webfact said:

Democrats have argued that Bolton and the other new witnesses must be heard for the trial to be fair.

They had their chance, so they can cry, but it's probably all over for them.

IMO the plan is to keep holding back the articles so they can complain that the GOP isn't playing fair, as they know they have zero chance of a conviction on the present articles, so long as enough GOP senators don't cross the floor.

13 hours ago, Redline said:

Not answering questions, or letting others answer questions for years of legitimate questions, one can come to a sixth graders conclusion-got something to hide-in addition to hundreds of outright lies and conspiracy theories-ain’t no bigley nothing burger

Everything is a conspiracy against poor little Donny.  Please send the sixth grader home, and get an adult to run the country 

 

 

Yes, you have come to a sixth grader’s conclusion. 
 

Why did the House not take the time to compel the witnesses to testify? 
 

You may want to consult with some eighth-graders as the answer is (apparently) very complex. 

22 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You are really getting on my nerves. Can you read? Do you want an answer? Then read!

 

If someone, or in above case, a couple of people, explained something in detail, why should I explain it again?

But I guess that is one of the reason why you support Trump and I don't. I learn from the knowledge of other people, you obviously don't do that.

I just read through the thread and did not see a plausible reason for the House to not wait for the witnesses to testify. 
 

As you are so much smarter than I am, what was it you learned from the thread? 
 

Sorry, but no one else seems to know either. 
 

The House had the authority to take Trump to court to compel the witnesses to testify, yet they decided to forfeit that authority. Why? 

Two Republican politicians have slammed the Trump adminsitration following classified briefings about the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

"It was probably the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate," said Republican senator for Utah Mike Lee.

He said he left the briefing "somewhat unsatisfied" with the explanation for the assassination.

"I find this insulting and demeaning… to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold," he said. "I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States."

Mr Lee said he now plans to vote in favour of a new war powers resolution. "That briefing changed my mind."

Fellow Republican senator Rand Paul agreed, saying: "I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq."

He also said using the 2002 authorisation to justify the strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad was "absurd" and an "insult".

"Let's have the debate, and let's have some senators stand up," Mr Pauł said.

 

45 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I just read through the thread and did not see a plausible reason for the House to not wait for the witnesses to testify. 
 

As you are so much smarter than I am, what was it you learned from the thread? 
 

Sorry, but no one else seems to know either. 
 

The House had the authority to take Trump to court to compel the witnesses to testify, yet they decided to forfeit that authority. Why? 

These people  here have been told time and time again the federal courts and if necessary the SC decide disputes between the two branches! The radical dems are causing divisiveness while shunning  the rules ! 

Edited January 9, 20206 yr by riclag

47 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I just read through the thread and did not see a plausible reason for the House to not wait for the witnesses to testify. 
 

As you are so much smarter than I am, what was it you learned from the thread? 
 

Sorry, but no one else seems to know either. 
 

The House had the authority to take Trump to court to compel the witnesses to testify, yet they decided to forfeit that authority. Why? 

Because it was an investigation Not a trial. Get it?

 

They dont need to wait. If they wait trump will be out of office by the time the courts rule.

 

So they had evidence to charge him. Now the senate has the trial. Each senator swears an oath before trial to be fair and impartial.

 

So tell me when is there ever an investigation which results in charges where no witnesses or extra evidence uncivered is not only alllowed, but in the interests of justice, is not called.

 

Trumo can also call exculpatory evidence. But he has none.

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

These people  here have been told time and time again the federal courts and if necessary the SC decide disputes between the two branches! The radical dems are causing divisiveness while shunning  the rules ! 

The house has sole authority re impachment, not the courts. Read the constitution.

On 1/8/2020 at 9:44 PM, JHolmesJr said:

 

in your inconsequential opinion.

 

many Americans know Joe B is dirty as hell...they want to see what's up with the guy.

 

Simply entering the race as a candidate for your party's nomination does not grant immunity

or scrub past potential crimes clean. Get educated.

How would many americans know what joe biden did? Any evidence?

25 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The house has sole authority re impachment, not the courts. Read the constitution.

Well follow the constitution. The house investigates and the senate is the jury.The house dems want to dictate the rules of the senate.and want Mr. Trumps cabinet  to testify while the POTUS claimed his constitutional right of executive privilege . You read the constitution. The courts decide disputes between the 2 branches not the dems...

Edited January 9, 20206 yr by riclag

Troll post removed.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 2:31 PM, RideJocky said:

Yes, you have come to a sixth grader’s conclusion. 
 

Why did the House not take the time to compel the witnesses to testify? 
 

You may want to consult with some eighth-graders as the answer is (apparently) very complex. 

Pretty sure you know the answer ????