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

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That argument was demolished by one of Trump's lawyers.

The Dems should have done all that in the house BEFORE presenting the articles. Hamilton foresaw exactly this situation where one party makes a frivolous impeachment and expects the senate to do their job for them.

The Dems are the ones making the accusations. Why would the GOP senators help the Dems do their job?

 

BTW, although it's described as a trial it isn't really. The senate makes its own rules, and it's political, not criminal.

Amuses me to hear some people claim there is a "precedent" for witnesses when there has only been two impeachments before. Hardly binding.

hahaha demolished. So funny. And wrong. Congress investigates. Senate does the trial. So which wirnesses did the senate call to do their sworn oath duty?

 

So 1. Congress makes accussations. Senate is to. conduct the trial, thats their job as sworn under oath. Regardless of what they think of the congress evidence.

 

2. There is actually over a dozen impeachment trials. Never has there been no witnesses.

 

Trump supporters and facts dont do well.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I can envision a scenario where the totality of the corruption gets exposed.  In which case, as is now happening with the Mueller case and related cases stemming from the investigation possibly being invalidated due to the invalidity of several of the FISA applications, it's entirely conceivable that the impeachment gets nullified.  If it is shown definitively that the impeachment was groundless and deliberately ill conceived then it's only logical.

i think you watch too much Alternative Facts.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, codebunny said:

Precisely. The Do'h!mocrats were warned that all this would come to nothing, yet on they pressed, wasting everyone's time, including their own. Now they have to find a credible charismatic leader to help them try and win an election. Running out of time now... D'oh!

do you think the dems should not do their condtitutional duty? Like repubs perjured their oath. U ok with that?

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

do you think the dems should not do their condtitutional duty? Like repubs perjured their oath. U ok with that?

 

give it up homie...its OVER

save ur energy for the next scam investigation

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

It appears to me, that the Senate is about to vote down an attempt to remove the President that was the most partisan in history. A sham.

 

That means the Constitution works.

It also seems that the so called conspiracy theory about the Bidens has some teeth to it, and never was debunked. On the contrary, it never was brought into the light.

 

The origins of the Trump investigation, the Mueller Report, and the dirty tricks of the Dossier, and FISA warrants, are also in the light. John Durham will make results known in the summer.

 

This is what you get!

 

God Bless America!

what the bidens did was irrelevant tp what trump was impeached for.

 

Perhaps a little study on the facts may enlighten you. But trump supporters and facts dont gel.

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

hahaha demolished. So funny. And wrong. Congress investigates. Senate does the trial. So which wirnesses did the senate call to do their sworn oath duty?

 

So 1. Congress makes accussations. Senate is to. conduct the trial, thats their job as sworn under oath. Regardless of what they think of the congress evidence.

 

2. There is actually over a dozen impeachment trials. Never has there been no witnesses.

 

Trump supporters and facts dont do well.

There is no further recourse. Sorry if this angers you. As soon as that vote is cast, and the tally made known, something will be said. That is going to be repeated over and over and over again! I wont say what now, but the Constitution of the United States will have spoken.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Feel free to challenge the facts I present anytime.  The above is nothing more than a slight.

you have never questioned facts on the impeachment. All you have done is deflect even and used questionable sources that even by your own admission has had you suspended.

 

Perhaps its time you reconsidered your thoughts.

[Crazy Alex]

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

hahaha demolished. So funny. And wrong. Congress investigates. Senate does the trial. So which wirnesses did the senate call to do their sworn oath duty?

 

So 1. Congress makes accussations. Senate is to. conduct the trial, thats their job as sworn under oath. Regardless of what they think of the congress evidence.

 

2. There is actually over a dozen impeachment trials. Never has there been no witnesses.

 

Trump supporters and facts dont do well.

You said it. Congress investigates (I know you meant the House). That included witnesses. They had over a dozen testimonies for the Senate to consider. End of story.

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

what the bidens did was irrelevant tp what trump was impeached for.

 

Perhaps a little study on the facts may enlighten you. But trump supporters and facts dont gel.

If it was irrelevant the House Impeachment managers shouldn't have brought it up over 400 times. And I got excellent command of the facts.

[Crazy Alex]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

what the bidens did was irrelevant tp what trump was impeached for.

 

Perhaps a little study on the facts may enlighten you. But trump supporters and facts dont gel.

The topic of Trump's conversation with Zelensky and ostensibly the reason Trump asked for an investigation is irrelevant? How is that possible?

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

There is no further recourse. Sorry if this angers you. As soon as that vote is cast, and the tally made known, something will be said. That is going to be repeated over and over and over again! I wont say what now, but the Constitution of the United States will have spoken.

Wrong again. Recourse is in november. What the repubs have been saying, in opposition to whay the constitution Says.

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

If it was irrelevant the House Impeachment managers shouldn't have brought it up over 400 times. And I got excellent command of the facts.

Wrong. You have no comprehension of any facts.

 

In a normal trial the accusers state a case. Defense does the same. Then accusers rebut that.

 

In a senate trial that doesnt happen so the advantage is to those that go last.

 

so to preempt the defense the accusers rebutted the defense argument first. Hard thing to do but they covered all facts and did it well.

 

Thats if you are able to comprehend the facts and reasoning. But it seems you cannot.

[riclag]

Presenting facts sometimes never gets recognized or refuses to be recognized when it comes to the dems and their supporters!

 

 The key direct witness Z ,no push,no blackmail ,normal  conversation spoken on 3 separate occasions! 

 

 

[codebunny]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

do you think the dems should not do their condtitutional duty? Like repubs perjured their oath. U ok with that?

They're not really doing their constitutional duty, they're sulking and trantruming just like the Remainiacs in the UK, because they can't get over the fact that they assumed they would win their big vote in 2016, and the voters got it wrong... so rather than doing their constitutional duty of behaving like a proper political opposition, they invest 3+ years in trying to imagine into existence Watergate, but it's looking an awful lot more like DribbleGate... this impeachment demeans the purpose of impeachment, I don't care about Trump either way, but this is a utterly lame way to oppose his administration.

The last Dem administration was conjured into existence by manipulating social media and fame culture, and you ended up with a vapid figurehead, with a set of boring catchphrases like an Action Man politician, and who failed to achieve anything other than the collapse of Libya and Syria, which ultimately nudged the beginning of the breakup of the EU. What a surprise that you end up with a reality TV LARPer as president after that?! 

Whilst the Democrats fail to address the lack of a credible candidate win back the presidency, control of American parliament and house of lords, and instead squander resources on an impeachment attempt that was destined to fail, instead of building momentum behind a vision and replacement candidate. The Dems have probably increased the chances of a silly president to win again. Who have they got to win votes from him? I mean really? Who? Was all this impeachment a cover for not having any decent candidates for president? Hilary wasn't good enough, why don't the Dems focus on putting up a candidate who is better than Trump, according to all the rhetoric and invective, it shouldn't be hard...

Edited February 3, 2020 by codebunny

[candide]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I entered only this portion of the link into the search bar ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9/ and the article came up.  I just read it.

 

It's absolutely pathetic.  Worse than pathetic.  For one, the Business Insider reporter, John Haltiwanger, who is a Senior Politics reporter, obviously did not do any research.  Many references to mere reports from other news outlets.  So many facts which are flat out wrong.  And, importantly, so many facts left out which would tell a much different tale.  Simply unbelievable.  Good Lord!!

 

I can't remember exactly where in the Olivier Berruyer videos I watched but there was a segment where he analysed MSM news reports and attempted to contact the reporters of some of the articles.  No response from any of them.  I'm not surprised.

Berruyer is quite a marginal player, a local minor blogger, why would they care to respond?

I guess you are not surprised that a pro-Russia local French blogger with no particular financial resources suddenly comes up with an international investigation, without any input from an invisible hand (Невидимая рука).

[candide]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Presenting facts sometimes never gets recognized or refuses to be recognized when it comes to the dems and their supporters!

 

 The key direct witness Z ,no push,no blackmail ,normal  conversation spoken on 3 separate occasions! 

 

 

Under oath?

[MaxYakov]

If the articles look like Schiff, you must acquit!

[riclag]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Under oath?

Fact: Z  ,no push,no blackmail and normal. So now you want to have Z testify under oath lol . Another one that the  dems neglected to subpoena !  So the direct  key witness words stand on 3 occasions ! Nice try! 

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

The son of an American VP was getting 85G a month, from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while is Father was pointman on US-Ukraine policy, and you say the reason for his payment does not matter?

 

Pretend for a moment Donald J Trump was never born. This would still be your contention?

 

Not our problem? Until this corruption is rooted out and exposed, and justice is served it most certainly is a problem for the USA, if that is who you meant by "our". It most certainly is our problem. 

 

The mear exposure of this, in a manner that expressed a sincere desire to have it looked into, led to the Impeachment of the President.

 

So let's keep digging.

The reason for this payment can easily be deduced:  Burisma thought they were hiring influence with the US government.  However since VP Biden did nothing to help Burisma or his son, they were mistaken. 

 

Let's take another hypothetical:  A failed real estate mogul has a string of bankruptcies and can't get financing from US banks.  A large German bank is the only one that will deal with him.  Later it is revealed that this bank has been laundering money on a massive scale for corrupt oligarchs from Russia and other places.  The real estate developer is then elected President in an election in which Russia meddled on his behalf.  The new President defies convention and refuses to put his businesses in a blind trust or reveal past tax returns.  He also sues to prevent the bank and his accounting company from releasing financial details.  Shouldn't this President be investigated?

 

Oh wait, this isn't a hypothetical. 

 

"Not our problem? Until this corruption is rooted out and exposed, and justice is served it most certainly is a problem for the USA, if that is who you meant by "our". It most certainly is our problem."

 

I agree.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's interesting that certain posters are still, still trying to maintain a false narrative despite the fact the video series does an exceptional job explaining it all with facts and documentation.  It's beyond me why they don't want to view it for themselves.  Ah, well.

 

Do check out the OAN series as well.  Another excellent piece chock full of documented facts and interviews.  Between the OAN and the French series they're both corroborative.

 

Interesting, too, that Googling "Giuliani podcast" won't come up with the site until page 2.  The first two items that come up are hit pieces by NBC News and the Daily Beast.  Information warfare.  The OAN series is linked there.

It's interesting that certain posters waste so much time with videos.  If it isn't worth putting into print, it isn't worth wasting time on.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You can repeat that lines as often and as loudly as you want.

 

Trump's request was either legitimate or it wasn't.  If it was legitimate then the Dem narrative is destroyed.  That is the relevancy of the Bidens.

 

By all means, carry on.

Remember there were two requests; the Biden investigation and the debunked conspiracy theory on the DNC server.

 

Without any evidence, and without going to his own agencies for evidence, Trump's requests were not legitimate.

 

Even if he had a legitimate request, holding up military aid to blackmail the Ukraine President into announcing investigations was not legitimate.

 

But don't worry, the Republicans have decided that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.  They have made the President above the law. 

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, riclag said:

Fact: Z  ,no push,no blackmail and normal. So now you want to have Z testify under oath lol . Another one that the  dems neglected to subpoena !  So the direct  key witness words stand on 3 occasions ! Nice try! 

Fact:  Zelensky is under duress.  Trump will exact revenge if Zelensky confirms any of the charges against him.

[candide]

35 minutes ago, riclag said:

Fact: Z  ,no push,no blackmail and normal. So now you want to have Z testify under oath lol . Another one that the  dems neglected to subpoena !  So the direct  key witness words stand on 3 occasions ! Nice try! 

No, I say anyone can say anything he wants when not under oath, see Trump, for example who is lying all the time. On top of it, Z was careful to phrase it in a way that is easily reversible.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Fact:  Zelensky is under duress.  Trump will exact revenge if Zelensky confirms any of the charges against him.

You have been told many times before these are the words from the key witness they are fact! You don't deal in fact  you only suppose or presume . Give it up ! 

 

[candide]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It's interesting that certain posters waste so much time with videos.  If it isn't worth putting into print, it isn't worth wasting time on.

Exactly! I guess they find the tone 'convincing'!

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

No, I say anyone can say anything he wants when not under oath, see Trump, for example who is lying all the time. On top of it, Z was careful to phrase it in a way that is easily reversible.

More presumptions ! 

[candide]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

More presumptions ! 

No presumptions. There are testimonies under oath and texts showing pressure has been exerted.

[riclag]

1 minute ago, candide said:

No presumptions. There are testimonies under oath and texts showing pressure has been exerted.

I could care less about hearsay testimony of presumptions  . Fact: Z said no push,no blackmail and normal 3 times on 3 different occasions. Give it up! 

[Cryingdick]

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

I could care less about hearsay testimony of presumptions  . Fact: Z said no push,no blackmail and normal 3 times on 3 different occasions. Give it up! 

 

The dems sure put a lot of effort into battles they have already lost don't they? 

[candide]

18 minutes ago, riclag said:

I could care less about hearsay testimony of presumptions  . Fact: Z said no push,no blackmail and normal 3 times on 3 different occasions. Give it up! 

Testimonies under oath by US officials. Text messages letting no doubt therevwas a QPQ. Come on. Even some Republicans have acknowledged there was a QPQ. Give it up!