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

[riclag]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The situation he is operating in is not conjecture.  Only a fool would say he is free to speak without fear of retribution.  Therefore what he said is not credible.

 

Most people understand this.  Obviously not all.

Ridiculous and nonsense.  What he said is credible ! The mare fact that he said it and  your denying and  making up something while bent on speculation when in fact he  ran on finding the truth on his country's corruption and got elected for it shows  and speaks of his integrity.

 

Fact, he said what he said ,that is credible  3 times over and backed up by other's in his cabinet.

 

Enough with your speculation! I talk of facts and other's facts that back up what he said, that you can't spin ! Your hell bent on this twisting the facts .  Let it go,HB!

 

 

   

Edited February 4, 2020 by riclag

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Ridiculous and nonsense.  What he said is credible ! The mare fact that he said it and  your denying and  making up something while bent on speculation when in fact he  ran on finding the truth on his country's corruption and got elected for it shows  and speaks of his integrity.

 

Fact, he said what he said ,that is credible  3 times over and backed up by other's in his cabinet.

 

Enough with your speculation! I talk of facts and other's facts that back up what he said, that you can't spin ! Your hell bent on this twisting the facts .  Let it go!

 

You consistently avoid noting that Ukraine is at war with a much more powerful neighbor and has no hope of a tolerable settlement without military, financial, and diplomatic support from the US.  In other words, the support that Trump has held up once and will hold up again if Zelensky upsets him.

 

Zelensky is under duress.  His statements can only be considered with that fact in mind.  Let it go!

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

You dont seem to have a problem with conjecture etc against bidens though. Despite actual evidence showing he did nothing wrong.

 

I also see trump is acting like a dpoilt 6 year old again and wants bolton in jail.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-hoping-lock-john-041020861.html

 

I have no idea what your getting on with . You d speak of something else when I'm clearly talking about what you swear by in other threads, Fact! Z said no push,no blackmail and normal 3 times over!

[riclag]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You consistently avoid noting that Ukraine is at war with a much more powerful neighbor and has no hope of a tolerable settlement without military, financial, and diplomatic support from the US.  In other words, the support that Trump has held up once and will hold up again if Zelensky upsets him.

 

Zelensky is under duress.  His statements can only be considered with that fact in mind.  Let it go!

Thats is a opinion "duress" not fact! Fact : 3 times he said what he said

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Thats is a opinion "duress" not fact! Fact : 3 times he said what he said

Another opinion from a journalist that you most likely to dismiss but what the heck....

But Zelenskyy’s response is utterly logical – and acceptable — at home. Ukrainians are humble people. They know that they are receiving foreign assistance and that they had better be grateful for it. I did not hear any Ukrainian in Kyiv criticizing their president for being subservient to Trump. Why should he do anything else if he wants U.S. support, they would argue? Being in a war with Russia since 2014, Ukraine needs all the support it can get. Therefore, it must not criticize a major donor.

This does not mean that Ukrainians thought Zelenskyy told the truth, but sometimes a president has to do what a president has to do. Needless to say, it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

 

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You consistently avoid noting that Ukraine is at war with a much more powerful neighbor and has no hope of a tolerable settlement without military, financial, and diplomatic support from the US.  In other words, the support that Trump has held up once and will hold up again if Zelensky upsets him.

 

Zelensky is under duress.  His statements can only be considered with that fact in mind.  Let it go!

You have zero evidence and zero proof that Zelensky was under duress.  100% assumption on your part.  Facts such as Ukraine's conflict, their need for military and other assistance, diplomatic support, whatever, are indeed facts.  But those facts do not, by themselves or even taken together, necessarily lead to your conclusions.  You'd get thrown out of a courtroom in zero seconds flat attempting to "prove" your conclusions based solely on your "facts."

 

And that's a fact.  Hang it up.  You lost the argument.

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Another opinion from a journalist that you most likely to dismiss but what the heck....

But Zelenskyy’s response is utterly logical – and acceptable — at home. Ukrainians are humble people. They know that they are receiving foreign assistance and that they had better be grateful for it. I did not hear any Ukrainian in Kyiv criticizing their president for being subservient to Trump. Why should he do anything else if he wants U.S. support, they would argue? Being in a war with Russia since 2014, Ukraine needs all the support it can get. Therefore, it must not criticize a major donor.

This does not mean that Ukrainians thought Zelenskyy told the truth, but sometimes a president has to do what a president has to do. Needless to say, it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

 

Just someone's opinion.  That's all it is.  So what.  What's that old saying?  Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone's got one.

 

Proof, my man, give us proof.

 

Edit:  I want to point out this single statement:

 

"This does not mean that Ukrainians thought Zelenskyy told the truth . . . "

 

Notice how the statement was written to subtlety imply that Ukrainians are all speaking with one voice?  I'm sure Ukrainians have just as many differing opinions as we do here.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again . . . 

 

While the Clinton trial did call witnesses all witnesses called were either witnesses from the House impeachment investigation or the Special Counsel's inquiry.  They were called to clear up some points of question.  No new witnesses were called in the Senate.

So there were witnesses. You conveniently leave out that the president allowed witnesses to Starr.

 

In this case it was congress doing the investigation. And trump refused to allow witnesses. So at the trial stage you nred witnesses. There are over a fozen impeachment trials. All had witnesses.

 

Easiest way to clear it all up is to allow witnesses. The call was perfect, witnesses will confirm that. So this could all have been over with no impeachment.

 

Does trump just like waisting time and money and causing division.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You have zero evidence and zero proof that Zelensky was under duress.  100% assumption on your part.  Facts such as Ukraine's conflict, their need for military and other assistance, diplomatic support, whatever, are indeed facts.  But those facts do not, by themselves or even taken together, necessarily lead to your conclusion.  You'd get thrown out of a courtroom in zero seconds flat attempting to "prove" your conclusion based on your "fact."

 

And that's a fact.

They do when ukraine is at war and dependant on aid and asking why the hold up. Even repubs were asking why aid was held up.

 

Mulvaney admitted why it was done.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just someone's opinion.  That's all it is.  So what.  What's that old say?  Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone's got one.

 

Proof, my man, give us proof.

You dont want the proof. Its called witnesses.

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just someone's opinion.  That's all it is.  So what.  What's that old say?  Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone's got one.

 

Proof, my man, give us proof.

Proof with the first hand witnesses and a proper trial. You going around in circle. Rather aimless and pointless misdirection. 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

So there were witnesses. You conveniently leave out that the president allowed witnesses to Starr.

 

In this case it was congress doing the investigation. And trump refused to allow witnesses. So at the trial stage you nred witnesses. There are over a fozen impeachment trials. All had witnesses.

 

Easiest way to clear it all up is to allow witnesses. The call was perfect, witnesses will confirm that. So this could all have been over with no impeachment.

 

Does trump just like waisting time and money and causing division.

Clinton and Trump impeachments were not apples to apples.  You're wrong.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They do when ukraine is at war and dependant on aid and asking why the hold up. Even repubs were asking why aid was held up.

 

Mulvaney admitted why it was done.

They weren't aware of the hold up at the time of the call and not until late August.  Are we back to this again?

 

Here's a quote from Obama during a Feb 11, 2015, Vox interview (bolded emphasis mine):

 

"Now, I also think that if we were just resorting to that and we didn't have a realistic view that there are bad people out there who are trying to do us harm — and we've got to have the strongest military in the world, and we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do what we need them to do if it weren't for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had — if we didn't have that dose of realism, we wouldn't get anything done, either."

 

Notice anything similar?

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont want the proof. Its called witnesses.

Oh, jeesh!  Witnesses is not what was being discussed.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

A trial with no witnesses is not a trial, ergo not fair.

 

The constitution says no such thing. Removal from office is for anything the senate decides it is.

 

classic democrat subterfuge.

Didn't like the jury's verdict, so put the jury on trial.

Absurd.

Turn out the lights the you leave, it's over.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Proof with the first hand witnesses and a proper trial. You going around in circle. Rather aimless and pointless misdirection. 

Rather aimless and pointless misdirection?  We weren't discussing witnesses.  We were discussing heybruce's insistence that Zelensky was under duress so therefore lied about his take of the call.

 

But by all means, slander me with "aimless and pointless misdirection" accusations while you have no idea of what the discussion was about in the first place.  It's what libs do.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

classic democrat subterfuge.

Didn't like the jury's verdict, so put the jury on trial.

Absurd.

Turn out the lights the you leave, it's over.

A jury that gets to decide whether there will be witnesses?

A jury whose foreman openly admits to collaborating with the defendant?

Willfully ignoring much?

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

classic democrat subterfuge.

Didn't like the jury's verdict, so put the jury on trial.

Absurd.

Turn out the lights the you leave, it's over.

Can’t have a jury’s verdict without a trial. Basic legal prerogative. That’s not a jury but a kangaroo court. 

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

classic democrat subterfuge.

Didn't like the jury's verdict, so put the jury on trial.

Absurd.

Turn out the lights the you leave, it's over.

Except the jury was also the judge and also working with the defense.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A jury that gets to decide whether there will be witnesses?

A jury whose foreman openly admits to collaborating with the defendant?

Willfully ignoring much?

If I recall correctly wasn't it Chairman Schiff whose got to decide which witnesses were able to testify?  Wasn't it Chairman Schiff who collaborated with the whistle blower?  Wasn't it Chairman Nadler who refused to follow House rules and allow the minority their right to have a day to call their own witnesses?

 

You might want to answer your own question?

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Rather aimless and pointless misdirection?  We weren't discussing witnesses.  We were discussing heybruce's insistence that Zelensky was under duress so therefore lied about his take of the call.

 

But by all means, slander me with "aimless and pointless misdirection" accusations while you have no idea of what the discussion was about in the first place.  It's what libs do.

If he wasnt under duress then why was trump witholding aid.

 

Why did Z set up an interview to announce an investigatiin, until the dirt became public.

 

Trump the great deal maker. Stops aid, asks for something, doesnt get it, then releases aid. What was the point.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

If I recall correctly wasn't it Chairman Schiff whose got to decide which witnesses were able to testify?  Wasn't it Chairman Schiff who collaborated with the whistle blower?  Wasn't it Chairman Nadler who refused to follow House rules and allow the minority their right to have a day to call their own witnesses?

 

You might want to answer your own question?

 

Repubs had 3 witnesses on their list that testified. Morrison, Kent, Hill.

 

No schiff did not collaborate with the wb. For someone who supposedly likes proof and facts you sure do make insinuations without any.

 

Nadler followed the rules set fown by repubs.

[Tippaporn]

Just now, Sujo said:

If he wasnt under duress then why was trump witholding aid.

 

Why did Z set up an interview to announce an investigatiin, until the dirt became public.

 

Trump the great deal maker. Stops aid, asks for something, doesnt get it, then releases aid. What was the point.

If he was under such great duress and felt he needed to go along with Trump else face retaliation then why didn't he open investigations as Trump asked?  Given all of the facts, not just cherry picked facts to fit a pre-determined narrative, your argument makes no sense.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If he was under such great duress and felt he needed to go along with Trump else face retaliation then why didn't he open investigations as Trump asked?  Given all of the facts, not just cherry picked facts to fit a pre-determined narrative, your argument makes no sense.

He had an appointment to be interviewed to fo just that. But it became public that trump was dodgy so it was cancelled.

 

So trump got nothing for witholding aid. Why did trump release the aid.

 

Edit. Z didnt need to investigate. Just announce one. For what?

Edited February 4, 2020 by Sujo

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Repubs had 3 witnesses on their list that testified. Morrison, Kent, Hill.

 

No schiff did not collaborate with the wb. For someone who supposedly likes proof and facts you sure do make insinuations without any.

 

Nadler followed the rules set fown by repubs.

Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison were the only ones who testified from their list.  Their witness list letter is contained in the article in full.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/09/house-republicans-deliver-list-of-eight-witnesses-requested-for-impeachment-inquiry/comment-page-1/

 

Even the Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios for lying about it.  So, not baseless.

 

Who set the rules down is irrelevant.  The House rule existed.

 

Later, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) read a copy of the rules from a sheet of paper in front of her.

“It says in the rules that you require to set a date for a minority hearing,” she read, adding that during the hearing, the rules “have been thrown out of the window.”

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison were the only ones who testified from their list.  Their witness list letter is contained in the article in full.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/09/house-republicans-deliver-list-of-eight-witnesses-requested-for-impeachment-inquiry/comment-page-1/

 

Even the Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios for lying about it.  So, not baseless.

 

Who set the rules down is irrelevant.  The House rule existed.

 

Later, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) read a copy of the rules from a sheet of paper in front of her.

“It says in the rules that you require to set a date for a minority hearing,” she read, adding that during the hearing, the rules “have been thrown out of the window.”

So now you blame dems for following the repubs rules.

[Fred white]

17 hours ago, codebunny said:

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...

Go back to England the US doesn't have a parliament or house of lords

[JHolmesJr]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

So now you blame dems for following the repubs rules.

 

Leave the business of the house in the house, this is the senate.

Mitch M followed the rules to a T.

Next!

 

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Leave the business of the house in the house, this is the senate.

Mitch M followed the rules to a T.

Next!

 

Follow Trump’s rule to a T. Mitch meet with the WH counsel and agreed to coordinate impeachment trial plans. He boasted on Hannity “ there will be no difference between the President’s position and our position in how to handle this”. Mitch already made clear it will

be a kangaroo court and will be covering for Trump. 

[candide]

That was an obvious cover up!