Oh, I'd still like to hear the witnesses. I want them on record for prosperity.
Let's see how many leftist will rationally answer this post
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Scut Farkus
Verified User
it's too late. your party fucked it up.
The only interaction Joe had with Ukraine was in an official capacity representing the US and allies.
Nope, he sure didn’t lie about getting the feckless prosecutor fired.
The lie about the bribe is yours.
Bolton's book scrambled up everything the Repubs had planned. They were going to wave away witnesses and declare America no longer a country with 3 sort of, equal branches. Trump was going to be immune from the legal system. He would answer to nobody. Oddly , one of the guys I thought was a danger to the USA, a warmongering neocon, may have saved us all. Big Ernie may have been stopped.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
dems flouted procedures. its their fault. your opinion is illinformed and assinine.
Can you go a post without calling people names and insulting. The fact is Trump actively prevented his people and many others from testifying or providing documents. What kind of legal maneuvers do you suggest that work on stonewalling? They issued 3 subpoenas and they were rejected. The only one that was not was McGahans and it is still tied up in court. Justice delayed is justice not served.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
and there is a process the house should have followed to deal with that. throwing it to senate illformed isn't it. this impeachment was illformed, like a baby born with no face.
There have been 3 impeachments in history and the House and senate make their own rules. Where do you derive any precedent? The ill-informed one is you. They are debating that today, like whether they should have witnesses. that is fundamental to a trial. They all have that. But this time, we should not have witnesses?
The process, each side presents their witnesses to submit to questioning in the interests of having a fair trial that all can accept. Can you point out where that is acceptable? what court? Yet they are debating it and all that matters is if Moscow can get 51 votes.
Last edited:
Scut Farkus
Verified User
go investigate the house impeachment process for examplar legal deformity. you're way off the mark, potzy.
You are. thanks for playing. The Senate has been debating witnesses for a week. They are doing it again today. They are not discussing it on legal or moral grounds, but political. We all know it would be a more respected trial and conclusion if it had witnesses. There is no argument about that. The repubs want a worse trial for political reasons. They also want to protect Trump from paying for the things he does.
The reason they are debating it is because they have the power to make that decision. There is no binding precedent. There is no established law.
There was a judge impeached a few years ago. Just a judge and they had 26 witnesses. A trial without witnesses is not just an anomaly, but not a trial at all. Rightys are always fighting for Trump to get away with everything he does. Be honest. if it helps the thief in chief, you will back it.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
that cuts both ways. they're not guaranteed either. doy.
No shit. that is why the debate. However, the Dems are open to witnesses and testimony. I bet even rightys understand that would solidify whatever decisions the trial makes. It would provide facts and justifications. The Repubs have to justify to all voters why they stopped us from having a full and fair trial. I think meet and greets with the voters are going to be uncomfortable. The fact that you can do something wrong and get away with it , does not mean you should. I think everyone with firing neurons knows the decision should be made by gathering all the evidence possible. The Repubs are blocking evidence.
There have been 25 impeachments so far counting judges. What they have in common is every single one had witnessed......until now. The average amount of witnesses was 32. The trials were taken seriously and they provided all the evidence and testimony that was needed. This one is wrong.
Robo
Verified User
I know friend that it's perfectly OK with y'all neo-communist if Quid-Pro-Quo Joe gets a prosecutor fired who's investigating the CROOKED company that has his son Navy reject Hunter is sitting on their board of directors totally non-informed about anything company credible or of value except for his INFLUENCE with his father the Vise President of the United States. Of course that's fine & dandy among the CROOKED neo-commie Democrat mob, Who'd think anything different?
Robo
Verified User
Pass for what? I'll understand if you can't remember!
Robo
Verified User
What Hunter Biden was doing at Burisma is perfectly apparent to every honest person on earth. He was selling influence with Quid-Pro-Quo Joe! To insinuate anything else is simply dishonesty and hyper partisan horseshit!
No! Many a political crook has similar resumes! Hunter Biden was thrown out of the Navy for doing drugs. Hunter Biden refuses to pay child support for his child he fathered with a nightclub stripper & is being sued therefore. Hunter Biden is just another corrupt member of the Biden family that’s been financially benefitting from Quid-Pro-Quo Joe’s position as Vice President, Pretty damned despicable where I come from!
He founded an international racket selling influence to foreign countries and their corporations with his crooked father!
Quid-Pro-Quo Joe was covering for Hunter’s racket!
It’s just as logical, or even more so to think and believe that corrupt actors from other countries and Burisma and Hunter wanted him fired and ole Quid-Pro-Quo Joe obliged them.
Trump was perfectly within his rights to protect his Presidential privileged conversations & documentation with his administration employees. If the House had credible evidence that there was actual criminal and impeach-able information to be had from those folks and documents, they could have gone to court and forced Trump to provide such evidence and witnesses. Of course as usual, The House had ZERO credible evidence or affirmation from any credible source that any such credible witness or evidence was available and we should all know they, (the House), simply wanted another fishing expedition to hunt for a Trump crime, and that’s why they never bothered swith the court!
Turn off the CNN & MSNBC FAKE NEWS Nordi, and watch Fox where we honest and good folks go and get the real honest fair and balanced news!
Robo
Verified User
Apparently you failed to watch Quid-Pro-Quo Joe's video, huh?
Robo
Verified User
Actually, the thing they had in common was the fact that every witness that was called in every Presidential impeachment, by the Senate were the very same witnesses that had been called in the House before the articles ever went to the Senate, ZERO NEW witnesses were ever called in the Senate including the Clinton impeachment.