McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[BasicHumanUnit]

I didn't call you "simpletons", and yet you put the term in quotes, as if I did. Dishonest.
This is why I just don't bother. I'm tired of asymmetrical online conversations with wingers. A waste of time.
.

Well, yeah you did....read your own post above.
You try hard to be coy but most can see through it.

No problem. Your game is to make statements "some" might consider vague, and when asked for clarification you will play games.
I wonder if your intent is actually to have discussion at all.

And I'm not a 'Winger". I support ANY political figure who show genuine interest in doing what's BEST for the nation. I had "hoped Obama would be such, but instead he took a massively polarizing approach as can be proven with news articles throughout his terms.

You confuse those who care for the nation with those working to destroy it.

 

[Mac1958]

I didn't call you "simpletons", and yet you put the term in quotes, as if I did. Dishonest.
This is why I just don't bother. I'm tired of asymmetrical online conversations with wingers. A waste of time.
.

Well, yeah you did....read your own post above.
No problem. Your game is to make statements "some" might consider vague, and when asked for clarification you will play games.
I wonder if your intent is actually to have discussion at all.

And I'm not a 'Winger". I support ANY political figure who show genuine interest in doing what's BEST for the nation. I had "hoped Obama would be such, but instead he took a massively polarizing approach as can be proven with news articles throughout his terms.

You confuse those who care for the nation with those working to destroy it.

So you actually think I said that.

Asymmetrical conversations. No thanks.
.

 

[bendog]

I don't think there are going to be any witnesses. Mitt never even wanted to be in the Senate, and Collins would sell herself at this point to save her career … oh wait, she already did that. LOL

It looks very doubtful. Murkowski the same way. She's very skeptical about voting for it. I understand there are three Dem Senators who's state voted for Trump are also leaning that direction. Over with tomorrow thank goodness.

I understand where Mitt is coming from - a past Republican party that stood up to Nixon's abuse of power even if that meant a loss of their own power. Bottom line - Dershowitz perfectly summed up why what Trump did to further his own political benefit is NOT ok. I can imagine is an AOC type as president doing pretty much the same, and nearly half of Americans would say … well, give it a pass. So neither "side" is more pure or just.

And really what Trump did is not nearly as bad as Nixon. Trump's Ukraine didn't change anything that wasn't gonna happen. Trump's real defense is "so what."

There's no real suspicion that Hunter somehow helped a corrupt prosecutor stay in place. That's just the Trump spin. he's been spinning bs his entire life - Trump is spin and bs. But Joe Biden is no more ethically pure than Trump is pure. Hunter and the Brother's corruption was going to be an issue in any event. I 'get' the House impeachment, really I do. And whether it was Trump or Hillary doesn't matter to me. But kicking a guy or gal out of office for stupidly holding up aid or raising money for a private "foundation." Gimme a break. LOL

Now if we get to a point where one partisan group is saying voters cannot be trusted to decide who leads … I'll care then.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So you actually think I said that.
Asymmetrical conversations. No thanks.
.

Now you know how 90% of those you argue with see your posts.

Excellent. You landed right where I had hoped.

 

[sartre play]

My understanding is that Mitch said from the start that they have the numbers in the senate, so no matter what happens in the trial Republicans will vote that Trump did nothing wrong. so why work so hard to involve Biden? only reason I can see throw mud on presidential opponent?

 

[Terri4Trump]

When you miss Rush you miss everything. The first sentence at the top of his show yesterday was this:

• So, McConnell “doesn’t have the votes,” eh? He “doesn’t have the votes” to stop any witnesses, “doesn’t have the votes.” That was the big news that broke late yesterday afternoon; everybody ran with it. When what McConnell said was he didn’t have the votes…yet. Of course, Senator McConnell is very sly, very crafty, and I think it’s maybe a bit of misdirection. Time will tell…

Yes, the Turtle knows every trick. Maybe he is bird-dogging the Left. We will see.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

My understanding is that Mitch said from the start that they have the numbers in the senate, so no matter what happens in the trial Republicans will vote that Trump did nothing wrong. so why work so hard to involve Biden? only reason I can see throw mud on presidential opponent?

Is it "fair" that justice is applied in only one direction? I feel the injustice from where I am.
Personally, I would rather see EVERYONE guilty get their day in court, and a just conviction where appropriate.

I suppose what they are saying is that it's hypocritical for the Left to attack Mr. Trump when their own house is so full of corruption. Maybe it's a suggestion of possible action.....a veiled threat?

 

[jc456]

I don't think there are going to be any witnesses. Mitt never even wanted to be in the Senate, and Collins would sell herself at this point to save her career … oh wait, she already did that. LOL

It looks very doubtful. Murkowski the same way. She's very skeptical about voting for it. I understand there are three Dem Senators who's state voted for Trump are also leaning that direction. Over with tomorrow thank goodness.

I understand where Mitt is coming from - a past Republican party that stood up to Nixon's abuse of power even if that meant a loss of their own power. Bottom line - Dershowitz perfectly summed up why what Trump did to further his own political benefit is NOT ok. I can imagine is an AOC type as president doing pretty much the same, and nearly half of Americans would say … well, give it a pass. So neither "side" is more pure or just.

And really what Trump did is not nearly as bad as Nixon. Trump's Ukraine didn't change anything that wasn't gonna happen. Trump's real defense is "so what."

There's no real suspicion that Hunter somehow helped a corrupt prosecutor stay in place. That's just the Trump spin. he's been spinning bs his entire life - Trump is spin and bs. But Joe Biden is no more ethically pure than Trump is pure. Hunter and the Brother's corruption was going to be an issue in any event. I 'get' the House impeachment, really I do. And whether it was Trump or Hillary doesn't matter to me. But kicking a guy or gal out of office for stupidly holding up aid or raising money for a private "foundation." Gimme a break. LOL

Now if we get to a point where one partisan group is saying voters cannot be trusted to decide who leads … I'll care then.

well actually the defense is that it isn't a crime if it actually happened. it didn't. but even if it had.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My understanding is that Mitch said from the start that they have the numbers in the senate, so no matter what happens in the trial Republicans will vote that Trump did nothing wrong. so why work so hard to involve Biden? only reason I can see throw mud on presidential opponent?

It's the commies who were jumping up and down demanding witnesses. If not for that, the Republicans would probably never considered it. They would have just went straight to and up or down vote. All we are saying is that if they want to continue the fishing expedition, it's going to cost them, because even they know that Biden was up to no good in Ukraine, and they don't want anything to be discovered, especially just before an election.

 

[bendog]

I don't think there are going to be any witnesses. Mitt never even wanted to be in the Senate, and Collins would sell herself at this point to save her career … oh wait, she already did that. LOL

It looks very doubtful. Murkowski the same way. She's very skeptical about voting for it. I understand there are three Dem Senators who's state voted for Trump are also leaning that direction. Over with tomorrow thank goodness.

I understand where Mitt is coming from - a past Republican party that stood up to Nixon's abuse of power even if that meant a loss of their own power. Bottom line - Dershowitz perfectly summed up why what Trump did to further his own political benefit is NOT ok. I can imagine is an AOC type as president doing pretty much the same, and nearly half of Americans would say … well, give it a pass. So neither "side" is more pure or just.

And really what Trump did is not nearly as bad as Nixon. Trump's Ukraine didn't change anything that wasn't gonna happen. Trump's real defense is "so what."

There's no real suspicion that Hunter somehow helped a corrupt prosecutor stay in place. That's just the Trump spin. he's been spinning bs his entire life - Trump is spin and bs. But Joe Biden is no more ethically pure than Trump is pure. Hunter and the Brother's corruption was going to be an issue in any event. I 'get' the House impeachment, really I do. And whether it was Trump or Hillary doesn't matter to me. But kicking a guy or gal out of office for stupidly holding up aid or raising money for a private "foundation." Gimme a break. LOL

Now if we get to a point where one partisan group is saying voters cannot be trusted to decide who leads … I'll care then.

well actually the defense is that it isn't a crime if it actually happened. it didn't. but even if it had.

attempting a crime is still a crime, but again … so what. I'm not for removing Trump from office without an election, but the best outcome for me of this episode would be the dems realize the absurdity of Joe Biden running against Trump on the issue of Biden being so morally superior that the Republic's future makes Biden winning necessary

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think there are going to be any witnesses. Mitt never even wanted to be in the Senate, and Collins would sell herself at this point to save her career … oh wait, she already did that. LOL

It looks very doubtful. Murkowski the same way. She's very skeptical about voting for it. I understand there are three Dem Senators who's state voted for Trump are also leaning that direction. Over with tomorrow thank goodness.

I understand where Mitt is coming from - a past Republican party that stood up to Nixon's abuse of power even if that meant a loss of their own power. Bottom line - Dershowitz perfectly summed up why what Trump did to further his own political benefit is NOT ok. I can imagine is an AOC type as president doing pretty much the same, and nearly half of Americans would say … well, give it a pass. So neither "side" is more pure or just.

And really what Trump did is not nearly as bad as Nixon. Trump's Ukraine didn't change anything that wasn't gonna happen. Trump's real defense is "so what."

There's no real suspicion that Hunter somehow helped a corrupt prosecutor stay in place. That's just the Trump spin. he's been spinning bs his entire life - Trump is spin and bs. But Joe Biden is no more ethically pure than Trump is pure. Hunter and the Brother's corruption was going to be an issue in any event. I 'get' the House impeachment, really I do. And whether it was Trump or Hillary doesn't matter to me. But kicking a guy or gal out of office for stupidly holding up aid or raising money for a private "foundation." Gimme a break. LOL

Now if we get to a point where one partisan group is saying voters cannot be trusted to decide who leads … I'll care then.

Dershowitz didn't say that. He was speaking from a constitutional point of view, not who is right and who is wrong.

That aside, what your party did was charge a President for something they have zero evidence of. That was Dershowitz's point. It's in the book 1984. It was called a thought crime, and enforced by the thought police. This is exactly what this impeachment is about.

They impeached a President because of what they thought he was thinking. Schiff is the Thought Police. Do you know why you think this is worse than what Nixon did? It's because the Commies told you it was. Anybody that has any understanding of what Nixon did wouldn't even make such a ridiculous comment.

No, Hunter probably didn't do anything wrong. I can't say that about his father. Yes, we have video testimony from the prosecutor that got fired, claiming without a doubt, he was told to leave because he was breathing down Burisma and Hunter's neck. He suspected a money laundering operation involving Hunter. There is no reason (other than political power) that a drugged out guy, who got kicked out of the military, in and out of rehab since, was the most qualified attorney to take a job paying that kind of money.

BREAKING: Fired Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin FILES FEDERAL COMPLAINT Against Joe Biden

 

[jc456]

I don't think there are going to be any witnesses. Mitt never even wanted to be in the Senate, and Collins would sell herself at this point to save her career … oh wait, she already did that. LOL

It looks very doubtful. Murkowski the same way. She's very skeptical about voting for it. I understand there are three Dem Senators who's state voted for Trump are also leaning that direction. Over with tomorrow thank goodness.

I understand where Mitt is coming from - a past Republican party that stood up to Nixon's abuse of power even if that meant a loss of their own power. Bottom line - Dershowitz perfectly summed up why what Trump did to further his own political benefit is NOT ok. I can imagine is an AOC type as president doing pretty much the same, and nearly half of Americans would say … well, give it a pass. So neither "side" is more pure or just.

And really what Trump did is not nearly as bad as Nixon. Trump's Ukraine didn't change anything that wasn't gonna happen. Trump's real defense is "so what."

There's no real suspicion that Hunter somehow helped a corrupt prosecutor stay in place. That's just the Trump spin. he's been spinning bs his entire life - Trump is spin and bs. But Joe Biden is no more ethically pure than Trump is pure. Hunter and the Brother's corruption was going to be an issue in any event. I 'get' the House impeachment, really I do. And whether it was Trump or Hillary doesn't matter to me. But kicking a guy or gal out of office for stupidly holding up aid or raising money for a private "foundation." Gimme a break. LOL

Now if we get to a point where one partisan group is saying voters cannot be trusted to decide who leads … I'll care then.

well actually the defense is that it isn't a crime if it actually happened. it didn't. but even if it had.

attempting a crime is still a crime, but again … so what. I'm not for removing Trump from office without an election, but the best outcome for me of this episode would be the dems realize the absurdity of Joe Biden running against Trump on the issue of Biden being so morally superior that the Republic's future makes Biden winning necessary

attempting a crime is a crime. I'm still waiting for the crime. what is it? I just stated you didn't have one.

not clear why you distorted your post away from mine to make a stupid argument I know. oh wait, that's rhetorical.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am not prepared to bet the rent money either way

but clearly the dems failed to make a convincing case for their witch hunt

What I don't know is what the exact wording is for the first senate vote after the 16-hour Q & A part is over.
1. Will it be a vote to dismiss?
2. Will it be a vote to acquit or remove?

If the trial continues, then the next vote will be on witnesses.

I think it will be a vote on new witnesses

On new witnesses, it could go either way. It's just too tight. Yes, 3 Republicans want new witnesses but it takes 4 and the rest of the Republicans are pretty well in lock step. It's not something I would bet a hat on.

Republicans lose either way

Let them explain it to the voters

Those who favor witnesses the same. Don't believe for a minute this can be good for you people.

I believe in Justice. Get the Witnesses. Let the chips fly and end up where they lie. Truth is truth. There is so much being held in the shadows that WE, the PEOPLE, should know the truth. And it doesn't matter if it harms one side or the other as long as the truth comes out. To do anything less is just the Deep State. And if you are supporting suppressing evidence and truth then YOU are part of the same deep state you keep condemning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mitt is entrenched in Utah

but with ZERO chance of improvement within the republican party

He doesn't represent them. He represents Utah. And again, its not a coincidence that the one republican in no political danger wants the facts to come out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but clearly the dems failed to make a convincing case for their witch hunt

Clearly they did make a solid case, as anyone can see from the Republican's last line of defense:

"It's okay, if the president does it to try to get re-elected."

Better check those marching orders again ..

 

[Mac-7]

What I don't know is what the exact wording is for the first senate vote after the 16-hour Q & A part is over.
1. Will it be a vote to dismiss?
2. Will it be a vote to acquit or remove?

If the trial continues, then the next vote will be on witnesses.

I think it will be a vote on new witnesses

On new witnesses, it could go either way. It's just too tight. Yes, 3 Republicans want new witnesses but it takes 4 and the rest of the Republicans are pretty well in lock step. It's not something I would bet a hat on.

Republicans lose either way

Let them explain it to the voters

Those who favor witnesses the same. Don't believe for a minute this can be good for you people.

I believe in Justice. Get the Witnesses. Let the chips fly and end up where they lie. Truth is truth. There is so much being held in the shadows that WE, the PEOPLE, should know the truth. And it doesn't matter if it harms one side or the other as long as the truth comes out. To do anything less is just the Deep State. And if you are supporting suppressing evidence and truth then YOU are part of the same deep state you keep condemning.

A president needs confidentiality between himself and his inner circle in order to do his job

 

[Mac-7]

Mitt is entrenched in Utah

but with ZERO chance of improvement within the republican party

He doesn't represent them. He represents Utah. And again, its not a coincidence that the one republican in no political danger wants the facts to come out.

Romney is jealous and vindictive

he had his chance to be president and blew it

now he’s just one of 100

 

[Mac-7]

but clearly the dems failed to make a convincing case for their witch hunt

Clearly they did make a solid case, as anyone can see from the Republican's last line of defense:

"It's okay, if the president does it to try to get re-elected."

Better check those marching orders again ..

Fake news

Quote the republican who said that

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mitt is entrenched in Utah

but with ZERO chance of improvement within the republican party

He doesn't represent them. He represents Utah. And again, its not a coincidence that the one republican in no political danger wants the facts to come out.

Romney is jealous and vindictive

he had his chance to be president and blew it

now he’s just one of 100

Cool specious ad hominem! I award you 3 cult points.

Again,it's not coincidence that the one Republican in no political danger will allow the facts to come out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fake news

Quote the republican who said that

It was Dershowitz, on the Senate floor, in the trial. Good God man, pay attention!