6 minutes ago, candide said:

That was an obvious cover up!

You mean the insistence that Schiff has no contact with the “whistleblower” or the insistence that Republicans were able to call their own witnesses or the insistence that Republicans were allowed to ask their own questions?

 

 

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

You mean the insistence that Schiff has no contact with the “whistleblower” or the insistence that Republicans were able to call their own witnesses or the insistence that Republicans were allowed to ask their own questions?

 

 

Correct. Schiff had no contact with the wb.

 

Correct repubs did call witnesses.

 

Correct repubs did ask questions.

 

3 from 3. 

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

You mean the insistence that Schiff has no contact with the “whistleblower” or the insistence that Republicans were able to call their own witnesses or the insistence that Republicans were allowed to ask their own questions?

 

 

No contact. Witnesses testified. Republicans asked questions.

35 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!

 

No, he swore an oath to conduct a fair trial. Can you give me a link to any trial that had no docs or witnesses?

 

What are you afraid of, trump had a perfect call, so surely bolton and mulvaney will prove that. 

 

Seems trump likes to waste taxpayers money.

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No, he swore an oath to conduct a fair trial. Can you give me a link to any trial that had no docs or witnesses?

 

What are you afraid of, trump had a perfect call, so surely bolton and mulvaney will prove that. 

 

Seems trump likes to waste taxpayers money.

Indeed before now there never has been any impeachment trial in the senate (of a president or otherwise) without witnesses.

 

Consider the authoritarian precedent of what 45 has done.

 

Future presidents --

 

Can't be indicted of any crime while in office. Normally that meant that impeachment was the only option. But not really any more. 

 

Won't need to release any documents or witnesses at all for an impeachment investigation

 

Presidents can do anything in their own personal or political interest as long as they label it in the national interest, correctly or otherwise

 

If a case ever makes it to the senate again, it can be without any witnesses or documents

 

The republican cult of personality followers (mostly out of fear) have basically abolished congressional oversight and also the possibility of impeachment, no matter what. 

 

So now the USA has approved a presidency that is the same as a dictatorship.

 

Cult of personality followers that are celebrating and gloating now, have fun if there is a president that you oppose that now has all the powers of a dictator.

 

The American democracy is basically over. Without congressional oversight, without counterbalancing powers, the president is now an all powerful monarch. 

 

A republic if you can keep it. We didn't keep it. 

21 minutes ago, candide said:

No contact.

 

Right

 

21 minutes ago, candide said:

Witnesses testified.

 

Only those on Schiff’s approved list.

 

21 minutes ago, candide said:

Republicans asked questions.

Only questions approved by Schiff

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Indeed before now there never has been any impeachment trial in the senate (of a president or otherwise) without witnesses.

 

Consider the authoritarian precedent of what 45 has done.

 

Future presidents --

 

Can't be indicted of any crime while in office. Normally that meant that impeachment was the only option. But not really any more. 

 

Won't need to release any documents or witnesses at all for an impeachment investigation

 

Presidents can do anything in their own personal or political interest as long as they label it in the national interest, correctly or otherwise

 

If a case ever makes it to the senate again, it can be without any witnesses or documents

 

The republican cult of personality followers (mostly out of fear) have basically abolished congressional oversight and also the possibility of impeachment, no matter what. 

 

So now the USA has approved a presidency that is the same as a dictatorship.

 

Cult of personality followers that are celebrating and gloating now, have fun if there is a president that you oppose that now has all the powers of a dictator.

 

The American democracy is basically over. Without congressional oversight, without counterbalancing powers, the president is now an all powerful monarch. 

 

A republic if you can keep it. We didn't keep it. 

Yes, everything that does not go the left’s way is the end of democracy. 
 

Remember when Mueller was going to save the the world when Trump was ending democracy? 
 

Remember all you guys claiming he was not really exonerated of collusion and that he was guilty of obstruction of justice? 
 

What happened to those charges and that evidence, and why were they not included in the articles of impeachment?

 

The left loves democracy when they win, but when they lose they take it to the court or in this case impeachment. 
 

Not to worry, Bernie will make it all better come November.

55 minutes ago, candide said:

That was an obvious cover up!

It was politics, baby...just like what happened in the House....get used to it!

3 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, everything that does not go the left’s way is the end of democracy. 
 

Remember when Mueller was going to save the the world when Trump was ending democracy? 
 

Remember all you guys claiming he was not really exonerated of collusion and that he was guilty of obstruction of justice? 
 

What happened to those charges and that evidence, and why were they not included in the articles of impeachment?

 

The left loves democracy when they win, but when they lose they take it to the court or in this case impeachment. 
 

Not to worry, Bernie will make it all better come November.

easy said but hard to understand for the Trumpists..... he blocked everything and everyone from providing documents or any other records, threats to anybody who may provide info or any documents pertaining to his actions, but he has nothing to hide, how can anybody provide evidence against somebody that doesn't allow anybody to provide the slightest piece of records... but he has nothing to hide and not one time, NOT one time did he invoke executive privilege.... only threatening people with his so called revenge list and that's how my 7 years old reacts to his friends when they don't give him what he wants... but no problem, he's Potus, and as he said,  he's above the law

 

41 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No, he swore an oath to conduct a fair trial. Can you give me a link to any trial that had no docs or witnesses?

 

What are you afraid of, trump had a perfect call, so surely bolton and mulvaney will prove that. 

 

Seems trump likes to waste taxpayers money.

 

Seems Nancy Pelosi likes to waste pens....

Trump played by the rules of the game...and won.

Dems tried to circumvent rules of the game and get the 

senate majority to do their dirty work. Didn't work.

45 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

easy said but hard to understand for the Trumpists..... he blocked everything and everyone from providing documents or any other records, threats to anybody who may provide info or any documents pertaining to his actions, but he has nothing to hide, how can anybody provide evidence against somebody that doesn't allow anybody to provide the slightest piece of records... but he has nothing to hide and not one time, NOT one time did he invoke executive privilege.... only threatening people with his so called revenge list and that's how my 7 years old reacts to his friends when they don't give him what he wants... but no problem, he's Potus, and as he said,  he's above the law

I’ve never said he had nothing to hide. 
 

He didn’t block all of the witnesses and documents. you’re either making that up or just regurgitating what someone else made up. 
 

The House called plenty of witnesses and documents. So many that virtually every leftist posting here swore the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. 
 

That Schiff  did not want to subpoena witnesses is not Trump’s fault.

57 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It was politics, baby...just like what happened in the House....get used to it!

The house had witnesses, Congress didn’t. Not same as much as you wish to conjure.

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The house had witnesses, Congress didn’t. Not same as much as you wish to conjure.

 

as one of your anti trump pals told us, this isnt criminal its political.

whoever has the majority makes the rules. The dems tried their best

to unfairly convict...the senate is going to use their power to acquit.

Life is unfair if you hate Trump! 

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

. . .

The left loves democracy when they win, but when they lose they take it to the court or in this case impeachment. 
. . .

And the beauty of it all is that Trump is transforming the courts with Originalist judges.  It is becoming more difficult for LIBs to go "judge shopping" in search of an activist judge.

 

McConnell has Trump's list lined up and ready to begin again.

20 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

as one of your anti trump pals told us, this isnt criminal its political.

whoever has the majority makes the rules. The dems tried their best

to unfairly convict...the senate is going to use their power to acquit.

Life is unfair if you hate Trump! 

Well one of your senator Lamar Alexander believed that the Dems have proved their case against Trump and Trump had acted inappropriately. The Reps senators have acted unfairly, nothing to do with life. 

 

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Well one of your senator Lamar Alexander believed that the Dems have proved their case against Trump and Trump had acted inappropriately. The Reps senators have acted unfairly, nothing to do with life. 

 

 

I dont think he said exactly what you're saying.

Thats your inference.

You would abject fail a lie detector test.

9 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I dont think he said exactly what you're saying.

Thats your inference.

You would abject fail a lie detector test.

NYT 31/12/19

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats have proved their case that President Trump had acted “inappropriately” in his dealings with Ukraine

Lamar Alexander. Glad he's finally retiring. He's been one of those like Collins, Murkowski, McCain and Romney, who could always be counted upon to jeopardize any Senate majority.  That Senate seat will be filled by another strong Conservative Tennessean.

 

But Lamar's crowning comment on the whole thing was this: "I think what he did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors."

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Right

 

 

Only those on Schiff’s approved list.

 

Only questions approved by Schiff

 

 

 

Approved list included all true witnesses, except the WB. The others could not possibly have witnessed anything.

Which questions were forbidden?

Now the so called 'trial' by the Senate:

- the rules have been defined with the defendent

- no witnesses

- no questions because no witnesses

A cover up.

31 minutes ago, candide said:

Approved list included all true witnesses, except the WB. The others could not possibly have witnessed anything.

Which questions were forbidden?

Now the so called 'trial' by the Senate:

- the rules have been defined with the defendent

- no witnesses

- no questions because no witnesses

A cover up.

Hey according to your interpretation theory ,  "cover up", the chief justice of the SC must be involved cause he presides over it! Very over the top imop

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

Hey according to your interpretation theory ,  "cover up", the chief justice of the SC must be involved cause he presides over it! Very over the top imop

He did not make any decision, right? 

1 minute ago, candide said:

He did not define the rules, right? 

He judges the proceedings 

 

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

He judges the proceedings 

 

He did not make any decision. Those who make decisions are covering up.

9 minutes ago, candide said:

He did not define the rules, right? 

He rejected a Shummer's bid to introduce some old obscure  ruling on tie breakers !

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-impeachment-tiebreaker

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Hey according to your interpretation theory ,  "cover up", the chief justice of the SC must be involved cause he presides over it! Very over the top imop

Elizabeth Warren insinuated that very thing in one of her questions.  According to Senator Graham, Warren's insinuation is what tipped Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski to vote NO WITNESSES.  Graham said they couldn't believe that Warren was tagging the Chief Justice as political in his judging of the proceedings.

 

Democrats are the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

56 minutes ago, riclag said:

He judges the proceedings 

 

No he doesnt. The senate majority rules the proceedings. Anything the cj tries to do can be overuled by senate majority.

32 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No he doesnt. The senate majority rules the proceedings. Anything the cj tries to do can be overuled by senate majority.

  Can the senate overrule  the cheif justice when he told the house dems and WH lawyers to stop with the  admonishing conduct ?How about the CJ refusing to state Rand Pauls question on the whistleblower, could the republican majority over rule the CJ and bring  it to a vote to have the CJ  read the question?

Pelosi seems to think that the CJ can make decisions! 

https://apnews.com/1544c83c96cfdcc4c7ba36c5562109a1

 

 

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Well one of your senator Lamar Alexander believed that the Dems have proved their case against Trump and Trump had acted inappropriately. The Reps senators have acted unfairly, nothing to do with life. 

 

Just curious... do you think the House proceedings were fair?

8 hours ago, riclag said:

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

You know, every time you parrot the Republican talking point that "Zelensky said..." I can remind people that Zelensky is the President of a country at war, dependent on the US, under obvious pressure, and his words can only be understood in that context.

 

I like reminding people of this, so keep it up.  I can do this as long as you can.

8 hours 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 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.

 

Being at war with a much more powerful neighbor and being dependent on the US in this war is not duress.  Funny.

 

You can also keep it up.  Just more opportunities to remind people of what the real world looks like.