Was Nancy and Adam Schiff wrong?

**Earl** · 01-21-2020, 02:03 PM

It’s not up to the Senate to now try to help the House’s flawed and illegal inquiry by entertaining witnesses or curing a defective process.

**Nordberg** · 01-21-2020, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Earl

It’s not up to the Senate to now try to help the House’s flawed and illegal inquiry by entertaining witnesses or curing a defective process.

The House's impeachment was hampered by Trump's stonewalling. However the witnesses they had showed Trump was acting illegally in the Ukraine aid. They also said that Trump's secret and unapproved gang was subverting the diplomatic corps. Rudy had Yovanovich fired because she was not going to play ball. The case against Trump was proven conclusively. They did not get the real crooks to testify because Trump prohibited them from doing so or providing documentation.
The investigation was not flawed at all. It proved the case against Trump. The Senate can probably get even more proof , but they are covering up too.

**floridafan** · 01-21-2020, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Celticguy

And despite it all, the evidence, we were told, was overwhelming.
But now its not.
Cant have it both ways.

The more people who testify and confirm the evidence the house presents, the stronger and unimpeachable is the case.

**Sirthinksalot** · 01-21-2020, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by floridafan

A total of a dozen people were not allowed to testify

It's called executive privilege honey bunny. The dems could have taken the president to court over it, but they told us there was no time. And now they want to slow everything down?

**floridafan** · 01-21-2020, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sirthinksalot

It's called executive privilege honey bunny. The dems could have taken the president to court over it, but they told us there was no time. And now they want to slow everything down?

Yes, there was no time, unless they were willing to wait months for an outcome.
Remember how angry you got whenever Pres Obama used executive privilege??? Now is the right thing to so, and that is just one more valid reason why you are so fullofdogshit.

**Celticguy** · 01-21-2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by floridafan

The more people who testify and confirm the evidence the house presents, the stronger and unimpeachable is the case.

No.
The evidence was said to be overwhelming. If that were true anything further woukd be superfluous.

**floridafan** · 01-21-2020, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Celticguy

No.
The evidence was said to be overwhelming. If that were true anything further woukd be superfluous.

not with the current make up of this Senate, and its leadership

**canceled.2021.2** · 01-21-2020, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Nordberg

The House's impeachment was hampered by Trump's stonewalling. However the witnesses they had showed Trump was acting illegally in the Ukraine aid. They also said that Trump's secret and unapproved gang was subverting the diplomatic corps. Rudy had Yovanovich fired because she was not going to play ball. The case against Trump was proven conclusively. They did not get the real crooks to testify because Trump prohibited them from doing so or providing documentation.
The investigation was not flawed at all. It proved the case against Trump. The Senate can probably get even more proof , but they are covering up too.

So Schiff's impeachment evidence is not overwhelming as he claims?

**Into the Night** · 01-21-2020, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by floridafan

Why lie, they called a number of witnesses that Trump refused to allow. You gotta do better than this.

Really? Who? Trump doesn't get to say what is allowed. The Senate does.

**Into the Night** · 01-21-2020, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by floridafan

A total of a dozen people were not allowed to testify

Who? When?

**Into the Night** · 01-21-2020, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Phantasmal

The reason they want limited witnesses and testimony is because there are few witnesses to defend Trump, and their defense would be challenged, while there is literally dozens of witnesses against Trump. They know the trial will be very lopsided and incriminating.

Neither the House Democrats nor Trump get to decide who can be called as a witness or not. The Senate does.

**Into the Night** · 01-21-2020, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by katzgar

Your assertion that trump was impeached is correct

He is impeached. The Articles of Impeachment have been filed with the Senate (finally). He is impeached. Of course, that doesn't mean anything. All the Democrats have done is practically guarantee Trump's re-election.

**StoneByStone** · 01-21-2020, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Teflon Don

They told us that the evidence in their impeachment was OVERWHELMING and stood on its own. Yet now they are screaming for witnesses that they themselves did not call.

So does that mean that the articles of impeachment do not stand on their own? Are they not good enough for removal?

They do stand on there own, but the Republicans are still pretending Trump is innocent. So instead of trying to convince the Republicans, Pelosi and Schiff are just trying to make the Republicans look bad. And it might be working. Nearly 70% of voters believe that there should be witnesses. So if the Republicans are trying to keep us from seeing witnesses, it makes it look like they have something to hide.

**Into the Night** · 01-21-2020, 06:14 PM