Jump to content

U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial


webfact

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If Biden was involved in corruption then it would prove that Trump's request for Zelensky to aid in an investigation was exactly what it was and nothing more.  True?

 

The claim that his request was done solely to harm an inept political opponent would then be false.  True?

 

The Dems want to ensure that Biden corruption does not surface.  Else the entire impeachment drive would end immediately.  

Nonsense. Even if Trump's debunked theories about Biden and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike were true, there still would have been an abuse of power.

 

Moreover, If Biden was involved in corruption then an official investigation would have been started already by the Republican administration, i.e. by Trump's sycophant Barr. True?

 

The Republicans only want a show, but never want to open an official investigation into Biden. True? Isn't it strange? 

Edited by candide
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mogandave said:


Why do you think Biden is not being investigated?

Because they know there is no ground for it, and that they will quickly find nothing.

 

On the other hand, asking for a public announcement on TV by a foreign President, making a show during the impeachment investigation, etc.. allow to promote an alternate reality, without the need to provide any proof.

 

It's exactly the same for the "Ukrainian" Crowdstrike. The Republicans will never start any investigation on these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Edited by candide
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Funny how the dems asked for the chief justice to decide which witnesses would be relevant and called but the repubs were too scared and voted it down.

 

repubs are afraid of the chief justice now.

Yes and even beyond that if they had agreed to that the senate would still retain the power to overrule any specific decisions they didn't agree with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kelsall said:

So you admit the purpose of this whole charade is to influence the 2020 election.

I never said or suggested any such thing. But I can understand how you as a Trump supporter read and twisted my words to suit your cause.

If I must explain for you (but I know it won't be understood), the Democrats want to rid the country of this toxic president in an effort to limit the damage that he does to the country.

Simple to understand for any person who doesn't have blinders on.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Benmart said:

I am a member of this electorate you seem to speak for, and you don't speak for me. Your rant is just that, and if you are eligible, go out and vote in the next election. Otherwise, your words are as weak as your citizenship.

I make no bones about my citizenship. I am proudly Canadian.

And that qualifies me to hold an unbiased view, a clear view, unlike you who hurts every time somebody expresses an opinion of Dear Leader that opposes yours.

I can see the forest. Can you?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tug said:

And we all know Donald knows how to stonewall in court he’s been doing it for years,decades in fact it’s one of his favorite ploys when he wants to stiff a contractor except this time he is trying to do it to the country you know and I know he would drag it out for years before we the people would get a judgment it’s the way organized crime operates

By trump's behaviour & the GOP they are insulting the Constitution and the American voters. One hopes for the 11/20 election voters actually achieve want the majority desire; removal of trump

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Wouldn't it make sense to get the evidence BEFORE accusing anybody?

Besides, Dem. repeated many times that they have all the evidence - so what else is needed?

From the distance it looks like a Kangaroo Court to me. Gives me the impression that decision to Impeach was made the day after the president was elected.

The trial is in the senate. The process that led to impeachment in the house is similar to a grand jury. So the house didn't have a trial, though of course they heard a lot of witnesses. However, the white house stonewalled more extremely than ever in history, asserting totally falsely that they are not representing a U.S. president but instead an all powerful monarch.

 

So perhaps you're calling the process in the senate a Kangaroo court? Controlled by republicans that know the accused is guilty so they don't want to hear from witnesses, particularly the ones previously blocked by the white house. What are they afraid of? Of course, as they know that the impeached president is guilty, they want to continue to play act that he isn't by suppressing the previously blocked documents and witnesses.

 

Here is the giveaway. There has never before in all of American history been an impeachment senate trial (there have been many as it's not only something for presidents) without witnesses! A trial has witnesses. The American people know this and they also know that the predetermined acquittal of this impeached president without the blocked documents and witnesses will be totally worthless. This impeached president will crow about being vindicated but only his hard core base will accept that big lie.

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't state enough how the dems are destroying the POTUS rights by denying him and future office holders executive privilege rights in  the constitution imop ! 

Edited by riclag
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The trial is in the senate. The process that led to impeachment in the house is similar to a grand jury. So the house didn't have a trial, though of course they heard a lot of witnesses. However, the white house stonewalled more extremely than ever in history, asserting totally falsely that they are not representing a U.S. president but instead an all powerful monarch.

 

So perhaps you're calling the process in the senate a Kangaroo court? Controlled by republicans that know the accused is guilty so they don't want to hear from witnesses, particularly the ones previously blocked by the white house. What are they afraid of? Of course, as they know that the impeached president is guilty, they want to continue to play act that he isn't by suppressing the previously blocked documents and witnesses.

 

Here is the giveaway. There has never before in all of American history been an impeachment senate trial (there have been many as it's not only something for presidents) without witnesses! A trial has witnesses. The American people know this and they also know that the predetermined acquittal of this impeached president without the blocked documents and witnesses will be totally worthless. This impeached president will crow about being vindicated but only his hard core base will accept that big lie.

 

 

 

 

You may be right Jingthing, it seems you have much better understanding of US system than I do.

Perhaps you can answer if it is true that at the end of the last year (still before the Impeachment) the President wanted to testify, but his testimony was refused. I vaguely remember this piece of news.

If this is truth, it doesn't make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Evidence? Documents? Witnesses? Why on earth would we want a fair trial?

 

I believe the senate and the GOP are going to pay a very heavy price for their nonsense, and their unwillingness to at least hear the evidence, come November. I think we will be looking at a democratically controlled senate, house, and executive branch this time around. And the GOP deserves that trouncing. The people are tired of the nonsense.

Facts are that your wrong. Americans want witness and documentation by a  68% margin and 48% Republicans do as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tulak said:

You may be right Jingthing, it seems you have much better understanding of US system than I do.

Perhaps you can answer if it is true that at the end of the last year (still before the Impeachment) the President wanted to testify, but his testimony was refused. I vaguely remember this piece of news.

If this is truth, it doesn't make much sense.

You do sound uninformed and confused. Before impeachment he did say that he wanted to testify then reversed that. His MO is to say both and has no worry his CULT will support. In America we call that " speaking with both sides of your mouth". He denies, then deflects then says I did it so what! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

What part of the timing to get the SCOUS tiing is so diffucut to understand. Point in question the repease of his taxes is schudled for April I recall. Waiting for these issues to get court judgement is no timely possible!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, earlinclaifornia said:

You do sound uninformed and confused. Before impeachment he did say that he wanted to testify then reversed that. His MO is to say both and has no worry his CULT will support. In America we call that " speaking with both sides of your mouth". He denies, then deflects then says I did it so what! 


Most everyone speaks with both sides of their mouth.

 

Did you mean to say he speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

 

In any event, I don’t what’s wrong with wanting to testify but deciding not to testify. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

What part of the timing to get the SCOUS tiing is so diffucut to understand. Point in question the repease of his taxes is schudled for April I recall. Waiting for these issues to get court judgement is no timely possible!


What is it you are trying to say? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. That's what the courts exist for. If the Dems were too keen to reach the magic "impeachment" to go through the courts that's down to them. That they think the senate will continue the charade that benefits only the Dems is laughable, IMO.

Nothing to fear.

The problem with that is trumps doj is currently arguing thebexact opposite in court on exactly that issue.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...