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

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, candide said:

The evidence is quite convincing and uncontested under oath or by documents. If not true, it would be easy for Trump to contradict it. The fact that Trump and the Republicans want to prevent any additional evidence to surface tells a lot.

Most people understand that. Why do you think that two thirds of respondents in the poll proudly linked by muzley want witnesses?

No, there is nothing in this entire matter to be impeached with.

That makes this ridiculous ordeal even more unnecessary. 

 

If you want witnesses, why do you think that schiff is hiding testimony already given and refuses to interview the whistlblower? 

 

The democrats look desperate. This will be another reason why he will be reelected.

 

Time will tell just how bad this will be for the democrats. But if you think it is a good idea to keep pressing on, go ahead. 

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

100% of your post is a non-sequitur...a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

 

There is plenty of evidence on Biden...none of which has been "debunked". His time is coming.

 

Then why isnt the doj investigating him. You must hate the repubs being so incompetent.

 

all of which has nothing to do with what trump is on trial for.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Everyone knows all the left really wants is press time. 

And trump doesnt? Odd, since hes been crying about his first defense session not being on primetime. That why they cut it short for 2 hours only.

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Then why isnt the doj investigating him. You must hate the repubs being so incompetent.

 

all of which has nothing to do with what trump is on trial for.

I hate the fact things take so long to get answers. I hate the fact that the fbi lied about the facts of the unjustified spying on a political campaign. I hate the fact that the govt can willfully ignore foia requests for years. I hate the fact that more people have not been indicated for their role in this type of activity. 

 

But mostly, I hate the fact that they have still gotten away with subversion and an attempted coup. 

 

For now. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Since when are you guilty by accusation? 

 

Or is that the standard that you want to be the normal protocol now because it suits your needs. 

 

Why is the ICIG testimony being hidden? Why is the whistlblower and his history of ties to Biden and a member of schiffs staff being hidden? 

Speaking of guilty by accusation.

[Sujo]

44 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, the "evidence" is circumstantial, and full of assumptions, holes in testimony, testimony being hidden and clearly a partisan attempt to unseat a duly elected president. 

 

The backlash will be brutal. 

Circumstantial evidence on its own is not worth much, but when you have lots of it many people are convicted. Juries use common sense, trump supporters lack that.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

I hate the fact things take so long to get answers. I hate the fact that the fbi lied about the facts of the unjustified spying on a political campaign. I hate the fact that the govt can willfully ignore foia requests for years. I hate the fact that more people have not been indicated for their role in this type of activity. 

 

But mostly, I hate the fact that they have still gotten away with subversion and an attempted coup. 

 

For now. 

I hate the fact that trump supporters never stay on topic and keep deflecting to bidens and other things that are irrelevant to trumps charges.

 

All irrelevant noise.

[Chiphigh]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Circumstantial evidence on its own is not worth much, but when you have lots of it many people are convicted. Juries use common sense, trump supporters lack that.

Well, thank you. It is assuring to know that you can determine guilt with such ease. You might want to look into a career in law enforcement with those skills. 

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Chiphigh said:

Well, thank you. It is assuring to know that you can determine guilt with such ease. You might want to look into a career in law enforcement with those skills. 

Already done, retired prosecutor. ????

[BobBKK]

Trumps lawyers slaughtered the case in the first 2 hours. Dems must be sickened they have been caught out (again) using half-truths and partisan BS. Lots more to come.

[Chiphigh]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I hate the fact that trump supporters never stay on topic and keep deflecting to bidens and other things that are irrelevant to trumps charges.

 

All irrelevant noise.

There are no charges, there are accusations without the small issue of any kind of crime or impeachable act. 

 

That is quite relevant. 

 

But you keep on hoping for all your might. You'll have another 5 years to keep up the fight. 

[Chiphigh]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Already done, retired prosecutor. ????

Great, you must of had a great record of conviction with the ability to see guilt without having actual evidence. 

 

But then, federal government prosecution rates are quite high with people like Wiseman who hide exculpatory evidence. 

[Tulak]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's debatable as it definitely won't be by a majority of voters. 

I'd like to borrow your crystal ball. Pleaaaase

[Jingthing]

Just now, Tulak said:

I'd like to borrow your crystal ball. Pleaaaase

Not needed in this case. 

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Not needed in this case. 

Then why the multiple attempts to get him out of office if you know that he will not be reelected? 

 

I'll brace myself for the virtue signaling retort that will surely follow. 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, the "evidence" is circumstantial, and full of assumptions, holes in testimony, testimony being hidden and clearly a partisan attempt to unseat a duly elected president. 

 

The backlash will be brutal. 

The evidence is 'fluid'. It can mean anything the believer wants it to mean or is told it means. Until it hits the senate.

[Tulak]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, the "evidence" is circumstantial, and full of assumptions, holes in testimony, testimony being hidden and clearly a partisan attempt to unseat a duly elected president. 

 

The backlash will be brutal. 

You may be right. We may even see the whole case will help the President to be re-elected.

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Then why the multiple attempts to get him out of office if you know that he will not be reelected? 

 

I'll brace myself for the virtue signaling retort that will surely follow. 

Careful, the answer will be fluid, it will both self agree and contradict.

[Orton Rd]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:13 PM, simple1 said:

Polls can be incorrect, but showing majority are anti trump, as was the case in 2016. Guess depends if the electoral college again saves him from defeat. Still don't understand why some people support such an endemic liar with a horrible Administration...

Might have something to do with the economy, low unemployment rates, highest ever black employment, letting so many people out of prison to be given another chance, mostly black. Then there is the excellent work on border security and defense, you don't talk to Islamic Jihadists, you blow them to pieces! Great President who gets things done.

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Then why the multiple attempts to get him out of office if you know that he will not be reelected? 

 

I'll brace myself for the virtue signaling retort that will surely follow. 

Please read more carefully.

I have never said 45 can't be reelected. 

I am saying as before it would be almost impossible to for him to receive the majority of the votes. 

If he is reelected it will be another electoral college thing with a minority of votes. 

He never does anything to expand his base. Instead his play is only to energize his existing non majority base. 

[Sujo]

25 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Great, you must of had a great record of conviction with the ability to see guilt without having actual evidence. 

 

But then, federal government prosecution rates are quite high with people like Wiseman who hide exculpatory evidence. 

Im not american, we dont keep records of conviction rates as our appointment is not political.

 

where did i say i saw guilt without evidence? Circumstantial evidence is still just that, evidence. Do try to read the post before you comment. I said you need lots of it.

[Sujo]

17 minutes ago, Tulak said:

You may be right. We may even see the whole case will help the President to be re-elected.

Bit hard to know with a trial without documents or witnesses. First ever.

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Please read more carefully.

I have never said 45 can't be reelected. 

I am saying as before it would be almost impossible to for him to receive the majority of the votes. 

If he is reelected it will be another electoral college thing with a minority of votes. 

He never does anything to expand his base. Instead his play is only to energize his existing non majority base. 

Well, you can't possibly think that the tactics of the democrats don't have anything to do with the gridlock in the congress or the likely hood of working across the aisle. Meanwhile, he has still accomplished more than any president has in his first term, despite the relentless attacks. 

[Chiphigh]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Im not american, we dont keep records of conviction rates as our appointment is not political.

 

where did i say i saw guilt without evidence? Circumstantial evidence is still just that, evidence. Do try to read the post before you comment. I said you need lots of it.

The Circumstantial evidence you refer to is full of assumptions and innuendo. 

 

It will go nowhere. As will this third attempt at a coup. 

[Sujo]

28 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Then why the multiple attempts to get him out of office if you know that he will not be reelected? 

 

I'll brace myself for the virtue signaling retort that will surely follow. 

He didnt say he wont be re elected.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Chiphigh said:

The Circumstantial evidence you refer to is full of assumptions and innuendo. 

 

It will go nowhere. As will this third attempt at a coup. 

I never said it would. You are certainly having comprehension issues today.

 

 

This attempt at a coup is actually doung their constitutional duty.

[Chiphigh]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Bit hard to know with a trial without documents or witnesses. First ever.

Yes, it is the first time the house declined to vote on impeachment before trying to investigate and subpoena witnesses. 

 

It's also the first attempted coup with help from the fbi and doj. Those are firsts we can do without 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Well, you can't possibly think that the tactics of the democrats don't have anything to do with the gridlock in the congress or the likely hood of working across the aisle. Meanwhile, he has still accomplished more than any president has in his first term, despite the relentless attacks. 

Please don't ever put words in my mouth. 

You're entitled to your opinion about this impeached president. 

In my opinion as historians have already indicated albeit prematurely he is destined to be rated among the worst American presidents and possibly the very worst. 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Yes, it is the first time the house declined to vote on impeachment before trying to investigate and subpoena witnesses. 

 

It's also the first attempted coup with help from the fbi and doj. Those are firsts we can do without 

So you are ok with senators perjuring their oath.

[Chiphigh]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I never said it would. You are certainly having comprehension issues today.

 

 

This attempt at a coup is actually doung their constitutional duty.

Thank you for the continued condescending tone, must be those years of govt service. 

 

This is not a constitution issue, if it was, there would have been bipartisan votes to approve the impeachment articles because there would have been undeniable facts and a reason other than a partisan attempt to remove a president.