So who wants witnesses

The reds want it both ways. They argued about a rush through the House. Then later argued about how they were trying to delay. Just Repub logic, throw shit against the wall and see if any sticks.
This is simple. If you want a fair and open trial, you have all the documentation and witnesses you can dig up. Then if Trump were exonerated, he could claim a real victory. The Reds have created a bad charade. If they keep the trial from actually being a trial, Trump will not be able to brag that he was found innocent. He will, and the Reds will all repeat it over and over. But most Americans will see through it all and know Moscow and his minions prevented the truth from coming out.
There will be many books written by insiders. Trump will not be able to hide it forever. Bolton's book is ready for publication.
 
Phantasmal said:
It is generally what innocent people do. What the details to come out.
Click to expand...

Both Earl and I agree that if trump were innocent, he would want as many people from his administration to testify as possible... Earl, are you having a stroke?
 
Why do we need anymore witnesses??? Schiff and Nadler declared that their evidence was overwhelming and compelling.

Time to review their 48 day rush to impeachment evidence and vote. We don’t need anymore hearsay, innuendo or hyperbole.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



If the articles were rushed and incomplete, and the Senate has a chance to do a more thorough job of discovery, but rejects it in favor of a quick judgement, there goes that 'rush job' argument.

It was always obvious you are not interested in justice. You wanna believe the lies and continue the farce of President Trump. The American voters are taking note.
Click to expand...

It’s not ‘if’ the articles were rushed and incomplete they *were* rushed and incomplete.

If they weren’t, no new witnesses would be needed. That’s not a ‘Trump talking point’ it’s a simple fact.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
It’s not ‘if’ the articles were rushed and incomplete they *were* rushed and incomplete.

If they weren’t, no new witnesses would be needed. That’s not a ‘Trump talking point’ it’s a simple fact.
Click to expand...

Please name all the impeachments (and there have been far more impeachments than those of Presidents,) where there were no witnesses at the trial.

Because it is my understanding that every impeachment trial to date has had witnesses.

But hey. Republicans have control over this trial. They have complete freedom to make the biggest sham they desire out of it.

And Democrats control the House. They have complete freedom to bring as many impeachments as they see fit.

This is only Trump's first impeachment.

Plenty of time for more.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,

So the House should call Bolton and then send him over to take the stand in the Senate. That could happen.
Click to expand...

And why didn’t the House simply wait for Bolton before voting lol?

The answer is so obvious people would have to be blind not to see it: Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment and they weren’t going to be deprived of it. Send weak articles to the Senate that don’t stand a chance of conviction—didn’t matter, Democrats wanted to ‘impeach the Mother F*er’ and were going to do it at any cost.

I advocate making them pay the highest cost possible.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
And why didn’t the House simply wait for Bolton before voting lol?

The answer is so obvious people would have to be blind not to see it: Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment and they weren’t going to be deprived of it. Send weak articles to the Senate that don’t stand a chance of conviction—didn’t matter, Democrats wanted to ‘impeach the Mother F*er’ and were going to do it at any cost.

I advocate making them pay the highest cost possible.
Click to expand...

Um, no, that was only one Democrat who said that. If you wish to hold an entire party responsible for the words of one person then you are doing your own understanding of reality a disservice.

But don't worry, if you're approaching the understanding of this situation all wrong.

Democrats have the power, the chance, and the responsibility to impeach President Donald John Trump as many times as are appropriate.

You may have more chances to get it right!

This is only Trump's FIRST impeachment trial.

If at first you don't succeed try try again.
 
Darth Omar said:
And why didn’t the House simply wait for Bolton before voting lol?

The answer is so obvious people would have to be blind not to see it: Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment and they weren’t going to be deprived of it. Send weak articles to the Senate that don’t stand a chance of conviction—didn’t matter, Democrats wanted to ‘impeach the Mother F*er’ and were going to do it at any cost.

I advocate making them pay the highest cost possible.
Click to expand...


A House Intelligence Committee official later said in a statement that a lawyer for Bolton notified the panel that "Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."
We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today," the official said. "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the Administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...rts-to-secure-bolton-testimony-as-part-of?amp

The need to do this quickly involves wanting to stop Trump’s criming and also to keep the American public engaged.
 
Phantasmal said:
A House Intelligence Committee official later said in a statement that a lawyer for Bolton notified the panel that "Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."
We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today," the official said. "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the Administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...rts-to-secure-bolton-testimony-as-part-of?amp

The need to do this quickly involves wanting to stop Trump’s criming and also to keep the American public engaged.
Click to expand...

Newsflash: Trump is still ‘criming’ lol.

There are people who really believe this stuff?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



Um, no, that was only one Democrat who said that. If you wish to hold an entire party responsible for the words of one person then you are doing your own understanding of reality a disservice.

But don't worry, if you're approaching the understanding of this situation all wrong.

Democrats have the power, the chance, and the responsibility to impeach President Donald John Trump as many times as are appropriate.

You may have more chances to get it right!

This is only Trump's FIRST impeachment trial.

If at first you don't succeed try try again.
Click to expand...
Another impeachment circus will ensure that these sulking Dems who can’t get over the fact that Hillary lost will ensure that they will remain the minority party in perpetuity...Snowflake.
 
Jarod said:
They are going to pretend they want witnesses as long as they possibly can, until they have to decide whether to have witnesses or not.

I guarantee you the Republicans will be instructed to vote no on witnesses when the rubber meets the road.
Click to expand...

Again Garud... why didn't Pelosi and Schiff get all of the witnesses they wanted in front of the House? Why did they stop short? Why did they fail the American public?

Why did Schiff block the transcript release of Attkinson testimony? Why did Schiff lie about his involvement with the whistleblower? Why are the Dems hiding key information?
 
floridafan said:
How do you prove guilt or innocence without witness testimony, my sweetest.
Click to expand...

The House called all the witnesses they wanted, then they concluded their investigation and voted. Then Pelosi sat on the articles of impeachment for 2 weeks. So why did the House move so fast if they had other witnesses they wanted to hear from?
 
Phantasmal said:
I liked the idea of letting Roberts decide which witnesses are material, but Trumpublicans are afraid of that option because they know Hunter Biden is an immaterial witness.
Click to expand...

Personally I think Hunter would be a waste of time as he is immaterial. Ciaramella, Misko, Schiff... Bolton, Mulvaney, etc... Call them all.
 
The Dems in the House can “want” til Hell freezes over but the Republicans are showing unity and they have the votes.

This circus will end shortly.
 
Phantasmal said:
A House Intelligence Committee official later said in a statement that a lawyer for Bolton notified the panel that "Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."
We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today," the official said. "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the Administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...rts-to-secure-bolton-testimony-as-part-of?amp

The need to do this quickly involves wanting to stop Trump’s criming and also to keep the American public engaged.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so the Dems FAILED to use the checks and balances and then turn around and pretend that Trump 'obstructed' them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top