The Democrats witness dilemma

[PostmodernProphet]

No idiot- none of that! You are out in the weeds here.

What it comes down to is- do you believe a president should be able to use Financial aid approved by a nonpartisan approval in Congress, be used to extort other countries to help them win an American presidential election?

YES OR NO! Those are the only two options available.

no, there is a third option.....we can ignore the bullshit you pretend is fact and send you home to lick your wounds that haven't healed since 2016............when are you fucks going to realize that no sane person in this country believes the shit you make up......

[domer76]

EXACTLY. The electoral victory was FAR from a landslide. It ranks in the lowest 20% of electoral victories.

Both of former President Obama's electoral victories were greater...and both of former President Clinton's electoral victories were greater. And they both also won the popular vote.

Trump is a chump...and so are many of his supporters. Especially the ones who think his inaugural crowds...and electoral victory were great.

The RWers on this forum have real difficulty with the truth.

[domer76]

of course it does.....it means that what you are pretending is evidence is fake, worthless demmycunt blathering.......the type of stuff we've been hearing from you for the last three years.....,you can't just make shit up and pretend people have to believe it.......life doesn't work that way.......

I've dealt with some stupid fucking lawyers through the years. You're in the top tier of stupid.

[Adolf_Twitler]

no, there is a third option.....we can ignore the bullshit you pretend is fact and send you home to lick your wounds that haven't healed since 2016............when are you fucks going to realize that no sane person in this country believes the shit you make up......

Gotcha! Just deny it when you are guilty of anything and pretend like it didn't happen- AND if anyone should ever accuse you of something- accuse them of picking on you- and Blame it all on them! In fact, go ahead and make it all out to be about them and get the focus off of yourself.

DUDE, DO YOU REALLY THINK WE DO NOT KNOW DONALD TRUMP'S REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK BY NOW?

We see you coming miles away these days. You can deny- but you can't hide! PEEK-A-BOO! WE SEE YOU! LOL!

[Walt]

The fault is that the Burisma business was known by since 2014 and if Obama didn't care, Congress should have. Repubs controlled Congress the last two years of Obama's presidency and up to the 2018 mid terms. You can't absolve trump for sitting on this the entire time he's been president, or the republican Congress for their inaction from 2014-2018.

So you are arguing that Biden's supposed crimes have been covered up by trump and the Republicans in Congress. Remember Republicans still control the Senate. Maybe the problem is there is no there, there. There is nothing to investigate with Biden.

There is the accusation of a potential appearance of a conflict of interest that never became an actual appearance of a conflict of interest, which is to say, there is the accusations that there was no crime. trump has worse scandals weekly.

[Walt]

Yes, Warren is just a culture thief who lied to get ahead personally and politically... impeach Pocahontas!

If we are going to impeach based on lying about ancestry, trump lied repeatedly about being Swedish. There is no Swedish ancestry in trump, and yet he said it repeatedly, he even put it in his book. Then when he realized no one cared his father was German, he has started lying and saying his father was born in Germany.

Warren actually told the truth, way back when, she has some Native American in her ancestry.

[Walt]

I asked you, nigger.

Wow, rough group... And rough side of the politics. If CFM were on my side, I would not be on his side.

[Walt]

How many people from the trump administration are in prison, and it is how early?

What is difference between them and trump? They go to a real court, while trump has his Republican buddies to cover for him.

[Flash]

I remember with Limbaugh, his high price lawyers got the evidence of his other attempts to get drugs ruled inadmissible, because it would prejudice the jury. Then he claimed it had never happened, because it was ruled inadmissible.

It still happened. It is just the right wing judge who was hearing the case felt that having the jury find out what Limbaugh was doing would make them think he was guilty.

Judges on the left and right protect the defendant's rights whether they have a high-price lawyer or public defender by refusing to admit such evidence.

If a guy has been convicted of 5 rapes that cannot be admitted during the trial because it is not evidence he committed the current rape but it would prejudice the jury. It can be used during sentencing.

[christiefan915]

So you are arguing that Biden's supposed crimes have been covered up by trump and the Republicans in Congress. Remember Republicans still control the Senate. Maybe the problem is there is no there, there. There is nothing to investigate with Biden.

There is the accusation of a potential appearance of a conflict of interest that never became an actual appearance of a conflict of interest, which is to say, there is the accusations that there was no crime. trump has worse scandals weekly.

Not at all. I'm saying there were no investigations because there was no crime. Once Joe decided to run for president, cons decided to reframe both Bidens as criminals. Previously they only slammed Hunter for dating his brother's widow. Also, cons tried to paint Joe as a pedophile once he decided to run. These slimeballs will do and say anything to bash the competition and the truth doesn't matter.

[USFREEDOM911]

If Biden's son is called, you have to also call all the witnesses actually involved with the conspiracy. trump does NOT want that. he is doing everything in his power to block that from happening. That would mean months of listening to trump administration officials admit to illegal acts, OR go to jail for refusing to testify.

But I agree, you would get to call Biden's son... Who would then testify to how he cleaned up Burisma to a point they could pass western due diligence processes. You forget that Biden has already had to sign on to testimony about cleaning up Burisma, and so you really are not going to get much more out of him.

Incorrect, again.

[domer76]

Judges on the left and right protect the defendant's rights whether they have a high-price lawyer or public defender by refusing to admit such evidence.

If a guy has been convicted of 5 rapes that cannot be admitted during the trial because it is not evidence he committed the current rape but it would prejudice the jury. It can be used during sentencing.

In today's legal system, it's not how much justice there is, it's how much justice you can afford.

[NiftyNiblick]

The Democrats wish to call witnesses pertinent to the accusations.

The Bidens are not in any way, shape, or form pertinent to the valid reasons for impeaching Trump.

This is NOT a complicated thing.

This is perfectly obvious to any sentient human being.

Apparently the "sentient" qualification is a standard to which no contemporary Republican can rise.

[USFREEDOM911]

You are probably one third right, but definitely two thirds wrong. The Senate will fail to convict trump, that much is almost certainly correct.

Republicans will NOT even try to "exonerate" trump. Bringing forward the witnesses that could either exonerate, or convict trump would just reinforce that he is guilty in the voters minds. And make no mistake about it, trump is quite guilty.

trump will NOT win in a landslide. he might eke out a win, probably not in the popular vote, but maybe in the Electoral College. There is no way he gets a landslide.




This is going to sound mean, but nobody cares. Not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody. Who cares how long people who will vote for Republicans all the time will remember something. They are going to vote for Republicans whatever the Democrats or Republicans do. They will do that until they die.

What is a concern is what will people in battleground states think. They are overwhelmingly for impeachment, but not necessarily conviction. And there in lies the rub. Republicans have to look like they are taking this seriously, or they will lose all the battleground states. They also must keep this from getting anymore serious than it is, or they will lose all the battleground states.

And then there is the dying thing. Republican voters will be Republican voters until they die... But that is going to happen sooner or later. Republicans are not making good inroads with the younger people.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

[Bigdog]

Go sleep it off, clearly you're having trouble following the thread.

trump allowed foreign aid to the previous corrupt Ukraine president. trump did not call for the Bidens to be investigated until Joe started his campaign. trump is using Ukraine corruption as a cover for his scheme to bring down a political rival.

Don't doubt me.

His cover story for investigating corruption is ... investigating corruption.

Joe Biden got caught getting his son a top job in the most corrupt country in the world, while he was Obama's pointman in Ukraine. Then got caught, in Jan 2018, bragging about threatening a Ukraine prosecutor, who was investigating his son, by withholding a Billion in Aid. Prosecutor Shokin should be called as a witness at the impeachment trial.

And yes I doubt you. Yours is nothing but a fantasy lib fill-in-the-blanks scenario. Never is it Connect the Dots in libtard lalaland. Always full of holes. There is Zero evidence Zelensky was ever threatened. Call him as a witness, too.

The Aid was approved on May 23, ... two days before Poroshenko was to leave office.