Jump to content

U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial


webfact

Recommended Posts


57 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The Trump defense team demolished the very idea that this ridiculous mess should have been even presented to the Senate.

 

Demolished the idea that Trump could not have had any legitimate Presidential interest in the Bidens or the last election....after all he fricking said so on the call.

 

The idea that the Ukrainians are cowardly lying invalids was likewise demolished by the Defense, as was the idea that anything is impeachable about a short term hold on aid while the President basically took some time to figure things out Right or Wrong!

 

The Democrat party has gone mad!

Demolished, lol!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am more informed then you will ever be, and I have forgotten more then you will ever know. And yeah , I see no imaginary gun, and I do not read minds. 

Ukraine is at war with its much more powerful neighbor.  Tens of thousands have died.  Part of the country has been annexed, another part is occupied by rebels supported by Russia.  And guess what?  This war is being fought with guns!

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I think the Ukrainians are damn lucky that Donald Trump was elected. And are happily looking forward to 4 more years of a straight talking whitehouse.

Really?  Do you talk to many Ukrainians, or are you reading minds now?

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

 

As there is no legal basis for claiming continued anonymity then a seemingly plausible reason must be given to protect his identity.  The accuser must face the accused.  That is law.  You are arguing in favour of allowing people to accuse other people and then being able to remain anonymous.  Think about the consequences of that.  If it were allowed in this case then the same argument could made in every other case.  Are you willing to be accused by someone who does not have to identify himself due to the reasoning that you may retaliate against him?

 

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already.

 

Absolutely false.  And what evidence Bondi provides isn't at all inclusive of all the evidence thus far assembled.  It will come to light.

 

 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case.

 

As one of Trump's lawyers pointed out, rightfully so, that if Biden withheld the billion dollars in a quid pro quo to protect his son then the Democrat's narrative would instantly dissolve.  That, my friend, is the relevancy.

"The accuser must face the accused."

 

As has been explained many times, that is only true in a court of law.  I'd be more than happy to see Trump facing his accuser in court.

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll again remind you of what you are arguing for . . . the right of an accuser to retain anonymity.  In the United States of America an accuser must face the accused.  You are arguing against a longstanding, cherished, and foundational pillar of American justice.  Be very careful of what you ask for.

 

I had asked you to refute the facts Bondi presented.  If you are unable then that's fine with me.

Bondi, lol.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

He may not explicitly have that right but protecting him is in accordance with the intent of the law.

 

As there is no legal basis for claiming continued anonymity then a seemingly plausible reason must be given to protect his identity.  The accuser must face the accused.  That is law.  You are arguing in favour of allowing people to accuse other people and then being able to remain anonymous.  Think about the consequences of that.  If it were allowed in this case then the same argument could made in every other case.  Are you willing to be accused by someone who does not have to identify himself due to the reasoning that you may retaliate against him?

 

About Biden, this theory has been debunked already.

 

Absolutely false.  And what evidence Bondi provides isn't at all inclusive of all the evidence thus far assembled.  It will come to light.

 

 

And anyway this is not relevant for the case.

 

As one of Trump's lawyers pointed out, rightfully so, that if Biden withheld the billion dollars in a quid pro quo to protect his son then the Democrat's narrative would instantly dissolve.  That, my friend, is the relevancy.

What a load of rubbish.

 

Both dems and repubs agree a wb should remain anonymous. Both sides agree a plausible reason is that a wb does not face detrimental action against him for doing his duty. He has had death threats even tho no one has officially named him.

 

So tell me. What should a person do if he thinks there is wrongdoing. They do exactly what the wb did. He did everything by the book.

 

Also this is not a criminal trial. There is no right for an accused to face an accuser. Now if it was only the wb and trump u could argue it. But everything the wb stated is verified by others.

 

Or just call bolton. He is accusing trump. So call him.

 

I think you are confusing the biden theory with the moscow mitch theory.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs shared by the gossipblower was confirmed by bureaucrats with similar second- and third-hand feelings and beliefs. 

 

Only one guy talked to Trump.  Only one guy got an answer from Trump.  Ambassador Sondland.  He's the only one with first-hand information, and it was not only in Trump's favor; but Sondland admitted that any ideas that he had about Trump and quid pro quo were Sondland's own presumption.  Under oath.

 

That boat sailed a long time ago.

Then call the guys with first hand knowledge. It was a perfect call, what are you afraid of.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mogandave said:


I think it is the opinion of many people (not on the left) that even if what the whistleblower claimed was all true, it is not a crime. 
 


 

 

It doesnt need to be a crime. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Spare me the crocodile tears.  Trump approved and provided lethal weapons.  Obama denied lethal weapons and provided mere blankets.  What does that tell you?  The Dems propensity to twist reality to suit their fabricated narrative is legendary.


That’s a lie!
 

Obama sent blankets AND pillows!

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 44

      Why Men Are Rejecting Marriage

    2. 25

      Guys, do you cheat on your Thai wife/girlfriend?

    3. 0

      Senior Police Official Praises Two Officers for Saving Woman in Suicide Attempt

    4. 10

      Thailand Live Sunday 29 September 2024

    5. 44

      Why Men Are Rejecting Marriage

    6. 10

      Thailand Live Sunday 29 September 2024

    7. 0

      Death of Woman After Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Vehicle: Chachoengsao

    8. 0

      36-Year-Old Arrested for Serial Sexual Assaults, Posing as Employer Seeking Foreign Maids

    9. 10

      Thailand Live Sunday 29 September 2024

    10. 44

      Why Men Are Rejecting Marriage

    11. 90

      Tensions Rise Between Trump and Zelensky Amid Ukraine's War Efforts and Election

    12. 90

      Tensions Rise Between Trump and Zelensky Amid Ukraine's War Efforts and Election

    13. 10

      Thailand Live Sunday 29 September 2024

×
×
  • Create New...
""