If the Senate allows a fair trial...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I am for all relevant witnesses testifying.
They did it because they understand that they do not have a candidate who can win against President Trump in 2020.
They know what the outcome will be in the Senate and their only hope is to impeach.
They will fail.
They didn’t in the House because the Republicans were not allowed to call their witnesses,
This will be different in the Senate.
silly, Biden wins most polls.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
Trump is not a successful President. He struggles to get 45% approval with an economy that would have *ANY* other President soaring in approval up to 70% or more. There is a reason for that. He is not a good leader. He may have been able to insult his way into the office by some fluke of circumstances, but he cannot insult his way into the hearts and minds of most Americans.
Even among his supporters are many who dislike him.
And you can bet that those who do not support him do not like him.
He is a jerk. He has no class. He is rejected by truly popular people.
Trump is not a successful President. He struggles to get 45% approval with an economy that would have *ANY* other President soaring in approval up to 70% or more. There is a reason for that. He is not a good leader. He may have been able to insult his way into the office by some fluke of circumstances, but he cannot insult his way into the hearts and minds of most Americans.
Even among his supporters are many who dislike him.
And you can bet that those who do not support him do not like him.
He is a jerk. He has no class. He is rejected by truly popular people.
They did not allow the witnesses that the Republicans wanted.
The president refused to participate in the unfairness in the House...rightfully so.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
You are a jerk who says that he should not be allowed to Tweet. Ever read the First Amendment?
President Trump will win re-election and serve his second term and there”s nothing you can do about it, Snowflake.
The President did not allow the relevant witnesses that the House wanted. The Witnesses the President wanted were totally irrelevant. The President could have come in and shared all the facts, he knew better.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Fair to whom Jarod?
How are you defining fairness? Who do you want this to be fair for? Why are you afraid to answer?
Didn't the House have live testimony? Are you saying that the House of Representatives is going to vote to impeach a President without having all of the facts? Why would they do that?
Maybe my math is wrong, but I think they have a 4 seat majority. A 51 vote majority can set the rules of a trial.
Silly, Hillary was ahead by 12 points,
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
What facts are bottled up Jarod?
Why would the democrat party vote to impeach someone without all of the facts?
You have hearsay witnesses. You have the transcript. You have the whistleblower. You have ambassadors. You have people who were on the call. What else do you need Jarod?
Why would democrat party vote to impeach without all of the facts Jarod? Is that "fair"?
Althea
Althea told me...
What could Biden testify to? Contrast that with all of those who were forbidden by the WH
When? And how does that mean the Democrats have no chance? Are you assuming its a mathematical formula? Did you know that undecided's almost always historically break against the incumbent.
Separation of powers.
The Executive Branch is not subservient to the Legislative Branch.
They did not allow the witnesses that the Republicans wanted.
The president refused to participate in the unfairness in the House...rightfully so.
Last edited: