Was Nancy and Adam Schiff wrong?

Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

So Schiff's impeachment evidence is not overwhelming as he claims?
 
Phantasmal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither the House Democrats nor Trump get to decide who can be called as a witness or not. The Senate does.
 
katzgar said:
Your assertion that trump was impeached is correct
Click to expand...

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.
 
Teflon Don said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
StoneByStone said:
They do stand on there own,
Click to expand...
Define 'abuse of power'. Define 'obstruction of Congress'.
StoneByStone said:
but the Republicans are still pretending Trump is innocent.
Click to expand...
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
StoneByStone said:
So instead of trying to convince the Republicans, Pelosi and Schiff are just trying to make the Republicans look bad.
Click to expand...
Their usual routine.
StoneByStone said:
And it might be working.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's making themselves look bad.
StoneByStone said:
Nearly 70% of voters believe that there should be witnesses.
Click to expand...
The trial hasn't started yet.

StoneByStone said:
So if the Republicans are trying to keep us from seeing witnesses,
Click to expand...
They aren't.
StoneByStone said:
it makes it look like they have something to hide.
Click to expand...
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
 
StoneByStone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Schiff said the evidence he presented is OVERWHELMING

PERIOD

What makes you think any other witnesses will know anything else? What do you think you are going to learn that you don’t already know?
 
Teflon Don said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apparently they were lying. After all, if the evidence is compelling and stands on its own, why is Adam Schiff crying, lying and shitting his diapers? :laugh:
 
floridafan said:
Why lie, they called a number of witnesses that Trump refused to allow. You gotta do better than this.
Click to expand...

You sad, brain damaged dumbass; Adam Schiff and Nadler claimed that their evidence was compelling and overwhelming. They shouldn't need more testimony.

Is Schiff lying in this video?

Rep. Adam Schiff: Evidence Of The President's Wrongdoing Is Overwhelming
 
Phantasmal said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer TD's question hack; if the evidence is overwhelming and compelling, as liars Schiff and Nadler declared, why cry, bitch and shit their diapers over more evidence?
 
floridafan said:
Yes, there was no time, unless they were willing to wait months for an outcome.
Click to expand...

That is a lie you despicable whiny little twat. 48 days. They declared the evidence overwhelming and compelling. They don't need anything else.

floridafan said:
Remember how angry you got whenever Pres Obama used executive privilege???
Click to expand...

Remember how determined and desperate you were to defend it. Yet now, you are angry and cry about it. STFU you lie filled hypocrite on steroids. :rolleyes:

floridafan said:
Now is the right thing to so, and that is just one more valid reason why you are so fullofdogshit.
Click to expand...

You should kill yourself. You're a nobody. You'll always be a nobody. You're a moron. You will always be a moron. No one will miss you. No one would care. The worlds collective IQ would increase and it would save the valuable oxygen you waste with every breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top