37 minutes ago, candide said:

What falsehooď? Were Biden or Chalupa in a position to witness what Trump had done or said between March and September 2019? This is pure hypocrisy!

 

If Biden was involved in corruption then it would prove that Trump's request for Zelensky to aid in an investigation was exactly what it was and nothing more.  True?

 

The claim that his request was done solely to harm an inept political opponent would then be false.  True?

 

The Dems want to ensure that Biden corruption does not surface.  Else the entire impeachment drive would end immediately.  True?

 

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If Biden was involved in corruption then it would prove that Trump's request for Zelensky to aid in an investigation was exactly what it was and nothing more.  True?

 

The claim that his request was done solely to harm an inept political opponent would then be false.  True?

 

The Dems want to ensure that Biden corruption does not surface.  Else the entire impeachment drive would end immediately.  

Nonsense. Even if Trump's debunked theories about Biden and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike were true, there still would have been an abuse of power.

 

Moreover, If Biden was involved in corruption then an official investigation would have been started already by the Republican administration, i.e. by Trump's sycophant Barr. True?

 

The Republicans only want a show, but never want to open an official investigation into Biden. True? Isn't it strange? 

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Nonsense. Even if Trump's debunked theories about Biden and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike were true, there still would have been an abuse of power.

 

Moreover, If Biden was involved in corruption then an official investigation would have been started already by the Republican administration, i.e. by Trump's sycophant Barr. True?

 

The Republicans only want a show, but never want to open an official investigation into Biden. True? Isn't it strange? 

Why do you think Biden is not being investigated?

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Not fake, just exceedingly truthful.

Tell me what is truthful.

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why do you think Biden is not being investigated?

Because there is no evidence he did anything wrong. If there is evidence then trump can ask barr to investigate, thats the correct way.

Love the interview with george conway, the conservative republic lawyer husband of kellyann conway.

 

its live now, cutting the repubs to shreds.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If Biden was involved in corruption then it would prove that Trump's request for Zelensky to aid in an investigation was exactly what it was and nothing more.  True?

 

The claim that his request was done solely to harm an inept political opponent would then be false.  True?

 

The Dems want to ensure that Biden corruption does not surface.  Else the entire impeachment drive would end immediately.  True?

 

Your post is just a joke right?

 

1. No, what biden did is not relevant to what trump did. Trump has the doj or state department to investigate but he chose the way that was wrong.

 

2. Regardless of how inept you think biden is, the constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign govt to do it.

 

3. Investigate biden all you want. But do it the right way. Biden being guilty does not show trump as innocent. They are not mutually inclusive.

46 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why do you think Biden is not being investigated?

Because they know there is no ground for it, and that they will quickly find nothing.

 

On the other hand, asking for a public announcement on TV by a foreign President, making a show during the impeachment investigation, etc.. allow to promote an alternate reality, without the need to provide any proof.

 

It's exactly the same for the "Ukrainian" Crowdstrike. The Republicans will never start any investigation on these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I followed the impeachment hearings from day01, with Messrs. Kent and Taylor all the way to the hearings in the Judiciary committee, up to and including the 4 eminent and respected constitutional law professors. Prior to that, I had zero interest in American politics. 
What struck me was how professionally and civilised the Democrats conducted themselves. The republicans on the other hand behaved like buffaloes, the way I consider some Thais to behave. In particular, Jim Jordan and Gaetz (spelling?). 
As a complete non partisan, the facts were completely clear and undisputed. Trump abused his power, not that anybody should be surprised by this revelation, judging by his actions (vindictive and malicious). If any British PM, Tory or Labour, would have done even a fraction of what he did, that PM would have been removed from office without hesitation. 
My initial opinion was that Trump should be impeached and removed from office. What he was and is doing is surely to the detriment of the United States of America. On second thoughts however, if I could vote, I would vote for him to remain. A weaker US of A can only be good for the rest of the world. 

Funny how the dems asked for the chief justice to decide which witnesses would be relevant and called but the repubs were too scared and voted it down.

 

repubs are afraid of the chief justice now.

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Funny how the dems asked for the chief justice to decide which witnesses would be relevant and called but the repubs were too scared and voted it down.

 

repubs are afraid of the chief justice now.

Yes and even beyond that if they had agreed to that the senate would still retain the power to overrule any specific decisions they didn't agree with. 

18 hours ago, Kelsall said:

So you admit the purpose of this whole charade is to influence the 2020 election.

I never said or suggested any such thing. But I can understand how you as a Trump supporter read and twisted my words to suit your cause.

If I must explain for you (but I know it won't be understood), the Democrats want to rid the country of this toxic president in an effort to limit the damage that he does to the country.

Simple to understand for any person who doesn't have blinders on.

13 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Does one man/party have the power and the ability to ignore congress, defy the Constitution and sidestep institutional norms that have been the backbone of US law for 100's of years just because it doesn't suit them to follow the law and their man is guilty as sin? 

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

12 hours ago, Benmart said:

I am a member of this electorate you seem to speak for, and you don't speak for me. Your rant is just that, and if you are eligible, go out and vote in the next election. Otherwise, your words are as weak as your citizenship.

I make no bones about my citizenship. I am proudly Canadian.

And that qualifies me to hold an unbiased view, a clear view, unlike you who hurts every time somebody expresses an opinion of Dear Leader that opposes yours.

I can see the forest. Can you?

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

And we all know Donald knows how to stonewall in court he’s been doing it for years,decades in fact it’s one of his favorite ploys when he wants to stiff a contractor except this time he is trying to do it to the country you know and I know he would drag it out for years before we the people would get a judgment it’s the way organized crime operates

9 minutes ago, Tug said:

And we all know Donald knows how to stonewall in court he’s been doing it for years,decades in fact it’s one of his favorite ploys when he wants to stiff a contractor except this time he is trying to do it to the country you know and I know he would drag it out for years before we the people would get a judgment it’s the way organized crime operates

By trump's behaviour & the GOP they are insulting the Constitution and the American voters. One hopes for the 11/20 election voters actually achieve want the majority desire; removal of trump

19 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

The investigation was in the hands of the Democrat-majority House.  By placing an arbitrary time limit on their investigation to rush it through, the Democrats failed to call all the witnesses (Republicans were denied witnesses), subpoena all the documents (Republicans were denied subpoenas), and go through the courts to get all of their supposed "evidence" if executive privilege was claimed. 

 

Democrats were more interested in fabricating charges (which they did) and getting the ball rolling than being complete and thorough.  Now they want the Senate to continue their sham with selective "witnesses" and documents.  Drag it out as long as possible up to the election -- and even beyond.

 

Having a stable full of weak candidates has caused Democrats to have to GET TRUMP BECAUSE TRUMP.  The effort is all focused on damaging Trump as much as possible before the election.  

 

As for Schiff himself, he's probably the most intellectually dishonest politician that I've ever witnessed.  Nadler, the walking septic tank, is too stupid to get out of the way.

Wouldn't it make sense to get the evidence BEFORE accusing anybody?

Besides, Dem. repeated many times that they have all the evidence - so what else is needed?

From the distance it looks like a Kangaroo Court to me. Gives me the impression that decision to Impeach was made the day after the president was elected.

15 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Wouldn't it make sense to get the evidence BEFORE accusing anybody?

Besides, Dem. repeated many times that they have all the evidence - so what else is needed?

From the distance it looks like a Kangaroo Court to me. Gives me the impression that decision to Impeach was made the day after the president was elected.

The trial is in the senate. The process that led to impeachment in the house is similar to a grand jury. So the house didn't have a trial, though of course they heard a lot of witnesses. However, the white house stonewalled more extremely than ever in history, asserting totally falsely that they are not representing a U.S. president but instead an all powerful monarch.

 

So perhaps you're calling the process in the senate a Kangaroo court? Controlled by republicans that know the accused is guilty so they don't want to hear from witnesses, particularly the ones previously blocked by the white house. What are they afraid of? Of course, as they know that the impeached president is guilty, they want to continue to play act that he isn't by suppressing the previously blocked documents and witnesses.

 

Here is the giveaway. There has never before in all of American history been an impeachment senate trial (there have been many as it's not only something for presidents) without witnesses! A trial has witnesses. The American people know this and they also know that the predetermined acquittal of this impeached president without the blocked documents and witnesses will be totally worthless. This impeached president will crow about being vindicated but only his hard core base will accept that big lie.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes and even beyond that if they had agreed to that the senate would still retain the power to overrule any specific decisions they didn't agree with. 

This is the senate, the house investigation is over. The senate will decide whether this ridiculous fantasy will be continued or put into the dust bin where it belongs. 

 

How many attempts to erase the 2016 election is enough? 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

By trump's behaviour & the GOP they are insulting the Constitution and the American voters. One hopes for the 11/20 election voters actually achieve want the majority desire; removal of trump

That is quite a large generalized assumption with nothing to back it up other than your own opinions. 

3 hours ago, neeray said:

I make no bones about my citizenship. I am proudly Canadian.

And that qualifies me to hold an unbiased view, a clear view, unlike you who hurts every time somebody expresses an opinion of Dear Leader that opposes yours.

I can see the forest. Can you?

Being Canadian doesn't mean that you are somehow more unbiased or intelligent. Your opinion is merely that. Moral preening is not a virtue. 

3 hours ago, neeray said:

I never said or suggested any such thing. But I can understand how you as a Trump supporter read and twisted my words to suit your cause.

If I must explain for you (but I know it won't be understood), the Democrats want to rid the country of this toxic president in an effort to limit the damage that he does to the country.

Simple to understand for any person who doesn't have blinders on.

That’s what he said.

 

I know this won’t be understood, but everyone not on the left (apparently) has blinders on and do not want to be rid of him. 
 

It’s only the left that don’t like what he’s doing, and that is due in large part to the propaganda wing of the Democrat party. 
 

 

 

I can't state enough how the dems are destroying the POTUS rights by denying him and future office holders executive privilege rights in  the constitution imop ! 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The trial is in the senate. The process that led to impeachment in the house is similar to a grand jury. So the house didn't have a trial, though of course they heard a lot of witnesses. However, the white house stonewalled more extremely than ever in history, asserting totally falsely that they are not representing a U.S. president but instead an all powerful monarch.

 

So perhaps you're calling the process in the senate a Kangaroo court? Controlled by republicans that know the accused is guilty so they don't want to hear from witnesses, particularly the ones previously blocked by the white house. What are they afraid of? Of course, as they know that the impeached president is guilty, they want to continue to play act that he isn't by suppressing the previously blocked documents and witnesses.

 

Here is the giveaway. There has never before in all of American history been an impeachment senate trial (there have been many as it's not only something for presidents) without witnesses! A trial has witnesses. The American people know this and they also know that the predetermined acquittal of this impeached president without the blocked documents and witnesses will be totally worthless. This impeached president will crow about being vindicated but only his hard core base will accept that big lie.

 

 

 

 

You may be right Jingthing, it seems you have much better understanding of US system than I do.

Perhaps you can answer if it is true that at the end of the last year (still before the Impeachment) the President wanted to testify, but his testimony was refused. I vaguely remember this piece of news.

If this is truth, it doesn't make much sense.

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Evidence? Documents? Witnesses? Why on earth would we want a fair trial?

 

I believe the senate and the GOP are going to pay a very heavy price for their nonsense, and their unwillingness to at least hear the evidence, come November. I think we will be looking at a democratically controlled senate, house, and executive branch this time around. And the GOP deserves that trouncing. The people are tired of the nonsense.

Facts are that your wrong. Americans want witness and documentation by a  68% margin and 48% Republicans do as well.

5 minutes ago, Tulak said:

You may be right Jingthing, it seems you have much better understanding of US system than I do.

Perhaps you can answer if it is true that at the end of the last year (still before the Impeachment) the President wanted to testify, but his testimony was refused. I vaguely remember this piece of news.

If this is truth, it doesn't make much sense.

You do sound uninformed and confused. Before impeachment he did say that he wanted to testify then reversed that. His MO is to say both and has no worry his CULT will support. In America we call that " speaking with both sides of your mouth". He denies, then deflects then says I did it so what! 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

What part of the timing to get the SCOUS tiing is so diffucut to understand. Point in question the repease of his taxes is schudled for April I recall. Waiting for these issues to get court judgement is no timely possible!

Just now, earlinclaifornia said:

You do sound uninformed and confused. Before impeachment he did say that he wanted to testify then reversed that. His MO is to say both and has no worry his CULT will support. In America we call that " speaking with both sides of your mouth". He denies, then deflects then says I did it so what! 

Most everyone speaks with both sides of their mouth.

 

Did you mean to say he speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

 

In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify. 
 

3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

What part of the timing to get the SCOUS tiing is so diffucut to understand. Point in question the repease of his taxes is schudled for April I recall. Waiting for these issues to get court judgement is no timely possible!

What is it you are trying to say? 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

The problem with that is trumps doj is currently arguing thebexact opposite in court on exactly that issue.