A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

[Into the Night]

News flash: Both parties are struggling. Republicans as a party are in the most trouble. They are losing their demographics and gradually losing the numbers race.

Argument from randU fallacy. Bigotry.

They need to increasingly lean on voter suppression and far fetched hateful/fearful propaganda.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

And now, we see unabashed election-rigging coming straight from the President.

What election rigging?

And Republicans know they are in so much trouble they have to pretend bribery for sought-after foreign election rigging is perfectly OK.

What election rigging?

I am happy to be a member of neither party, but especially the Republican party.

You are clueless.

 

[Into the Night]

Republicans could have gotten Bolton to testify. They just didn't want to hear what he has to say. He might implicate the President. Republicans wanted to cover up anything that might do that.

Why listen to a someone that announced they were going to lie?

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Republicans could have gotten Bolton to testify. They just didn't want to hear what he has to say.

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

 

[Darth Omar]

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

Here’s your problem: the senate basically decided that even if Democrats could prove the allegations against Trump [in fact, some were convinced they did] the allegation doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. Hence, Bolton has nothing to add that would change anything. Assuming the media accounts accurately characterized his manuscript.

Hardly a given, given the current state of the media.

Anyone who stood behind the Clinton acquittal can’t, in good faith, object to the outcome. Clinton actually committed a crime and the Senate *still held* that it didn’t rise to the level where it warranted a conviction by the Senate.

 

[Flash]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

What provision in the Constitution does it violate?

 

[christiefan915]

yes, they could have had bolton, you retard. I continue to reiterate that point. The things they wanted him to speak to are perhaps covered under executive privledge. When oyu have a dispute between two different branches of government, the court resolves these issues. The democrats could have gone to court and forced bolton to testify. They chose not to do this, because they wanted to rush impeachment. Except then after rushing impeachment they then decided to sit on it for another month. So you are wrong, 100%. Democrats could have gotten bolton to testify, but they did not pursue it. That is 100% on the democrats. You are wrong.

Why should the Democrats do anything the repubs are whining about when they got zero cooperation from trump and his toadies? trump just uses people and throws them under the bus when they don't bow to his wishes. The Dems chose not to go to court because it got them nowhere when they tried to subpoena Don McGahn. McGahn defied a subpoena last May and months later everything is still tied up in the courts. The repugs could have let him testify but they were afraid to, after McGahn stood up to trump and threatened to blow the whistle on his behind the scenes behaviour.

You've chosen to ignore everything trump said and did about Bolton testifying. And you're just lying to yourself that everything pertaining to Bolton's testimony is the Dems' fault.

"The House did ask Bolton to testify But Bolton, who left his post in September, declined to do so at the White House’s directive. The White House successfully blocked a number of officials from testifying or producing documents relevant to the House’s investigation.

Bolton signaled that he would testify only if he were subpoenaed and if a court ruled that he should obey the subpoena over the White House’s instructions.

Bolton’s lawyers said he would sign on to a lawsuit filed by his deputy, Charles Kupperman, who asked a court for guidance after he received a subpoena from the House and an order from the White House not to comply."

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Tranquillus in Exile,

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

Mustn't see the truth one is trying so desperately to ignore.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

Here’s your problem: the senate basically decided that even if Democrats could prove the allegations against Trump [in fact, some were convinced they did] the allegation doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. Hence, Bolton has nothing to add that would change anything. Assuming the media accounts accurately characterized his manuscript.

Hardly a given, given the current state of the media.

Anyone who stood behind the Clinton acquittal can’t, in good faith, object to the outcome. Clinton actually committed a crime and the Senate *still held* that it didn’t rise to the level where it warranted a conviction by the Senate.

If that is not impeachable then nothing is.

How could anything be less American than imposing foreign interference upon American elections?

 

[christiefan915]

see this is why you are dumb. In the actual quote that you are responding to I never say they were at the trial. I literally said :

"there is no reason to call witnesses when you already have their testimony. Nothing has changed for any of the witnesses that already testified in the house."

So you make this bold, emphasized response thinking you've "got me" about how the witnesses weren't at the trial when I never said they were. I said they had their testimony, and I said nothing had changed from the house. You lack basic reading comprehension. Because you are stupid.

Are you really this dumb or are you just high and cranky? This entire thread is about having living, breathing human beings at the Senate trial. Not recorded testimony, sound bites, video clips, white boards or hearsay, but actual people. People who could be examined and cross-examined under oath at the Senate trial in real time. And the only reason it didn't happen is because the recorded testimony was already damaging to trump and the WH lawyers couldn't risk what else might come out.

Even toads like Rubio, Alexander and Toomey were forced to admit that all the info didn't look good for trump, but they didn't care. And devious trump lawyer Pat Cipollone kept it under wraps that he was one of the witnesses in the WH and at the center of this controversy.

Take off your partisan blinders and before you call people stupid, look in the mirror. You've gone full-on trumplicker are denying the facts.

 

[christiefan915]

the other misrepresentation by the House is that "it would take too long to go thru the courts"
Courts can and do expedite hearings in such situations - but they wanted to rush it thru for POLITICAL reasons.
Then Nancy sits on it for a month. then they squeal about not calling Bolton. what a bunch of BS

Why is Don McGahn still not talking?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

He's also free to do interviews any time he wants.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Hello Darth,



If that is not impeachable then nothing is.

How could anything be less American than imposing foreign interference upon American elections?

TRE45ON's actions were 100% impeachable, no question about it -- if there was a (D) after his name.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Why should the Democrats do anything the repubs are whining about when they got zero cooperation from trump and his toadies? trump just uses people and throws them under the bus when they don't bow to his wishes. The Dems chose not to go to court because it got them nowhere when they tried to subpoena Don McGahn. McGahn defied a subpoena last May and months later everything is still tied up in the courts. The repugs could have let him testify but they were afraid to, after McGahn stood up to trump and threatened to blow the whistle on his behind the scenes behaviour.

You've chosen to ignore everything trump said and did about Bolton testifying. And you're just lying to yourself that everything pertaining to Bolton's testimony is the Dems' fault.

"The House did ask Bolton to testify But Bolton, who left his post in September, declined to do so at the White House’s directive. The White House successfully blocked a number of officials from testifying or producing documents relevant to the House’s investigation.

Bolton signaled that he would testify only if he were subpoenaed and if a court ruled that he should obey the subpoena over the White House’s instructions.

Bolton’s lawyers said he would sign on to a lawsuit filed by his deputy, Charles Kupperman, who asked a court for guidance after he received a subpoena from the House and an order from the White House not to comply."

im stoned right now, i tried to read the above, but i just couldn't give a shit. i will try later

 

[tsuke]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

if its unconstitutional you can actually file a challenge in court.

 

[MAGA MAN]

If the President is acquitted in a trial where witnesses were banned then Autocracy has begun.
There will be no going back.
Is that really what you fools want?
To win a battle but lose everything?

Cry harder.

 

[Earl]

The fat lady is clearing her throat.

Put a fork in this partisan, probably unconstitutional, sham.

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



If that is not impeachable then nothing is.

How could anything be less American than imposing foreign interference upon American elections?

The second problem is Trump asking for an investigation of Biden/Burisma could serve the national interest.

Also, Joe Biden is not ‘the election’. Ultimately, it’s Biden’s fault for allowing a clear conflict of interest to exist in Ukraine while he was VP. To whatever extent this charade affects ‘his election’ chances is the Democrats fault. Without the ‘whistleblower’ none of this would have happened and Biden/Burisma wouldn’t have been in the news for months.

Though it was likely going to come up anyway, if Biden gets the nomination.

 

[FastLane]

By all accounts Bolton has vital evidence. The Republican senators would still have acquitted Big Don, but that might have made this 'trial' too much of a farce even for them.

Anyway, Bolton isn't going away. His book is due out in March, if the Trumpsters don't manage to get it suppressed.

Even if Bolton said Trump committed a Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine it still isn't a impeachable offense. All Bolton is doing is selling books.

 

[Darth Omar]

Even if Bolton said Trump committed a Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine it still isn't a impeachable offense. All Bolton is doing is selling books.

Dershowitz basically sunk their argument with his ‘mixed motives’ lecture.

The media *dutifully* mischaracterized it to mean a president can do literally anything if it serves a legitimate purpose. But at the end of the day, Trump ‘pressuring’ a foreign leader to do an investigation falls somewhere short of murdering someone on 5th avenue.

Article II and all that.

Keep in mind the pressure aspect will always be a matter of conjecture since the President didn’t have *one single witness* testify on his behalf—except President Zelensky, who twice claimed there was no pressure. Also, it’s likely one of the reasons Shifty won’t release his transcript is because it contains exculpatory evidence.

So the Senate ended up doing the right thing: they judged what the House sent to them; witnesses were heard and the Senate ruled the allegations didn’t warrant a conviction—even if true.

It’s basically over.

 

[Bigdog]

If you say so...and, of course you do.

The socialists have been trying to overturn the 2016 election results for years now, and CHUCK U. schumer has already declared the 2020 election invalid. Putin thanks you.