You really don't want Biden to testify...

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

True. That is different.

But its countered by the prosecutors in the impeachment hearings being allowed to use Fascist tactics to deny what would normally be ordinary Constitutional rights of the accused.

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump was too busy redoing NAFTA and proposing peace in the Middle East. Ain't nobody got time for Iran Nan's Monty Python skit gone bad

 

[BULLDOG]

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.

Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.

Their evidence is not sufficient. If an ambulance chaser lawyer files a frivolous suit, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine that he/she is not wasting their time calling witnesses. That is exactly what is happening here. The House is the equivalent of a bunch of ambulance chasers.

In this case, the Senate is not the Judge. They are the jury.

A jury that calls witnesses and helps the prosecution patch up a shoddy case? Really?

The jury doesn't call witnesses. The prosecution and defense do.

 

[MAGAman]

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, it's the senate's job to be the jury. I've never heard of any jury deciding what evidence the prosecution is allowed to present.

True. That is different.

But its countered by the prosecutors in the impeachment hearings being allowed to use Fascist tactics to deny what would normally be ordinary Constitutional rights of the accused.

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump was too busy redoing NAFTA and proposing peace in the Middle East. Ain't nobody got time for Iran Nan's Monty Python skit gone bad

Trump didn't redo NAFTA. House Democrats did that.

 

[BULLDOG]

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

Those are certainly the accusations that the right has made. It's all bullshit, but they did make those claims.

 

[yidnar]

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

Those are certainly the accusations that the right has made. It's all bullshit, but they did make those claims.

Prove the claims are wrong .

 

[MAGAman]

The jury doesn't call witnesses. The prosecution and defense do.

In this case..

You dont know what you're talking.about

 

[BULLDOG]

What a stupid hyperbolic remark. Trump could have participated, but he chose not to.

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

Those are certainly the accusations that the right has made. It's all bullshit, but they did make those claims.

Prove the claims are wrong .

Only 3 committees were involved in the investigations, and only members of those 3 committees were allowed in the closed door sessions. This is standard practice in all committees from both sides of the isle. Open sessions were open to everyone, like always.

 

[MAGAman]

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

Those are certainly the accusations that the right has made. It's all bullshit, but they did make those claims.

And yet everything I said is true.

 

[forkup]

Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.

It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.

So you are saying this trial has no legitimate legal purpose and is only going on as part of a political campaign. Shame on you.

Of course, it has a legal purpose. It's purpose being to remove this president from office. The first step without no further legal steps can be taken as long as he sits in office.

lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.

OH, and by the way, Nixon's support appeared rock solid, days before it completely evaporated, one never knows what tips the scales. I agree that thinking that the GOP capable of mustering the courage nowadays in this climate is slim but there is precedent.

While that's technically true, the Nixon example is not really an apt analogy here. Specifically, the turning point for Nixon happened when he produced a recording known today as "The Smoking Gun" recording, which unequivocally proved Nixon's knowledge and involvement in the Watergate break in and the attempt to cover it up. Nixon was about to be impeached for serious crimes and the recording made it indefensible, it would have been an open and shut conviction (this is before "deep fakes" were a thing, plus the recording was released officially by the WH).

There's nothing comparable here. Even if someone happened to magically show up with an audio recording of Trump saying exactly what is being alleged vis-a-vis quid pro quo, it would still fall back to the argument made by Dershowitz and others that the allegations -- even if accepted on their face -- do not raise an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. And people can debate whether that's correct all they want (and there will never be a consensus agreement on this issue), the bottom line is there are not 67 senators that believe it warrants conviction and removal. In fact, I believe we'll see a sprinkling of Dems voting for acquittal (Manchin among them after seeing his interview this evening).

The argument Dershowitz was making if accepted is the end of the US as a Democracy. The view that a president as long as he believes his election is in the national interest can by definition commit no crime means a carte blanche. Following Dershowitz's argument, Trump could for instance flat out refuse to accept the result of the elections if he loses. Or can declare the Democrats a terrorist organization or order the military to detain his opponents, etc. etc.. Oh and Bolton testifying is not something magical. It would be direct evidence of exactly what Democrats are alleging. This on top of people like Mulvany going on camera and admitting to it. Denying it or making it sound like something outrageous is simply a bad faith argument.

I'm kind of getting tired of people here pretending they actually believe that Trump didn't do exactly what is being said. I can accept it from people who are uninformed because they aren't interested but not by people who post on forums like this.

 

[forkup]

Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.

"I overheard Trump yelling coming through a cellphone in a crowded restaurant" is the opposite of evidence

Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.

Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.

Again, the only thing you are doing as affirming that the GOP does not take their oaths of office in any value.

Actually, he's affirming no such thing, as he can't speak for any Senator, and as far as I'm aware, there are a total of zero Senators that take marching orders from anyone on this forum.

Well, he's saying the exact same thing as multiple senators including I might add Mcconnell. You are right though he's not personally affirming this so it was wrongly stated by me. I should have put that caveat in there.

 

[IM2]

Trump's lawyers were barred from attending.

Trump and the GOP committee members were both barred from calling witnesses. (Sound familiar?)

The GOP committee members weren't allowed to ask questions of the witness that Shiffft didn't approve of.

Those are Gestapo tactics. My remarks were not hyperbolic.

Those are certainly the accusations that the right has made. It's all bullshit, but they did make those claims.

And yet everything I said is true.

No, it really isn't.

 

[DBA]

To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.

Read Joe's quote below:

"So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

He is clearly indicating the President told him to say that. In other words, this came from Obama himself. What, no investigation? You guys are hilarious.

More disingenuous bullshit from the right. Where is Obamas request for an investigation of his political opponent in an election? They wanted the guy fired for not investigating corruption. You have been shown and told that time and again. So drop the fake ignorance and stop pushing a lie.

Yeah, corruption that Biden's son may have been benefiting from. You have been told by the MSM that there is nothing there and yet there has been no investigation into the Biden's and there is PLENTY of smoke. Where is the outrage? There is not outrage because Biden is a Democrat. There is no outrage because if this were found out to be true, the intent of Trump's call would be made clear and the Democrats would look like even bigger idiots than they already do, if that is possible.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't want Joe Biden to testify because he would have no other choice but to throw Obama under the bus!

Anything Joe Biden did was with the approval of Obama...

I'm sure it was. The point is, firing Shokin was justified because as long as he was there, the IMF and EU weren't going to commit to more aid for the Ukraine. This is why Obama and Biden insisted he be removed.

 

[DBA]

You don't want Joe Biden to testify because he would have no other choice but to throw Obama under the bus!

Anything Joe Biden did was with the approval of Obama...

I'm sure it was. The point is, firing Shokin was justified because as long as he was there, the IMF and EU weren't going to commit to more aid for the Ukraine. This is why Obama and Biden insisted he be removed.

Biden's son was working for one of the companies being looked into for corruption. In other words, the guy may have been profiting from the very corruption Joe Biden said they were fighting against. It certainly doesn't pass the smell test, but you losers don't care about corrupt Democrats. Those are the guys buttering your bread for you and taking money from the big, bad rich guys.

 

[DBA]

You really don't want Biden to testify...

I do

You say you do because you're dumb enough to believe trump. If you weren't, you would know that if Biden was to testify, it would kill trump and every hope republicans had in retaining the senate next year.

LOL..you have bought all the crap you have been fed. Your handlers are doing a great job. Read some more editorials from the WaPo, the NY Times and Bloomberg. I bet these are some of your top sources.

It isn't coincidental that Hunter Biden began working for a Ukrainian company when Joe became VP and was appointed as the point man. Everyone knows that deep down, even you. Common sense should prevail.

 

[JoeB131]

Biden's son was working for one of the companies being looked into for corruption. In other words, the guy may have been profiting from the very corruption Joe Biden said they were fighting against. It certainly doesn't pass the smell test, but you losers don't care about corrupt Democrats. Those are the guys buttering your bread for you and taking money from the big, bad rich guys.

Bursima would have paid Hunter Biden's firm regardless of investigations. They were contracted to bring the company up to international business governance standards so the company could do business outside the Ukraine.

I don't take one penny from Government... but I realize that when 1% has 43% of the wealth, and 40% has less than 1% of the wealth, and THIS SHIT IS GETTING WORSE, it can't be good.

Okay... let's play a game. Let's list countries that had this level of obscene wealth disparity...

Ready.

France 1787
Russia 1917
Cuba 1959
Iran 1979

Hmmmmmmm..... What doe all those countries have in common?

 

[JoeB131]

LOL..you have bought all the crap you have been fed. Your handlers are doing a great job. Read some more editorials from the WaPo, the NY Times and Bloomberg. I bet these are some of your top sources.

It isn't coincidental that Hunter Biden began working for a Ukrainian company when Joe became VP and was appointed as the point man. Everyone knows that deep down, even you. Common sense should prevail.

Have you read Hunter's Resume. He's the kind of guy you WOULD hire for that sort of thing.

The thing was, Hunter had a very successful business as a lobbyist he had to give up when his Dad became vice president. So he took on foreign clients instead.

 

[MAGAman]

I'm sure it was. The point is, firing Shokin was justified because as long as he was there, the IMF and EU weren't going to commit to more aid for the Ukraine. This is why Obama and Biden insisted he be removed.

Could be.

You make a strong case for Joe Biden to testify about his corruption.

 

[MAGAman]

Have you read Hunter's Resume. He's the kind of guy you WOULD hire for that sort of thing.

The thing was, Hunter had a very successful business as a lobbyist he had to give up when his Dad became vice president. So he took on foreign clients instead.

If you wanted to purchase influence in the Obama admin, Bidens were fir sale.