Let them speak: Most Americans want witnesses in Trump impeachment trial - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, mercman24 said:

well on the outside looking in, it seems that other lot done <deleted> all in the 8 years they were in office, in 3 years this guy has turned the American economy around .

No Obama did. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, CaptRon2 said:

The Democrats could have let the courts decide, after all that is the responsibility of the judicial branch, but they were in to much of a rush, now they want The Republican Senate to do the job they they screwed up. Pretty funny, and once again exposing how weak they are, but as a Trump supporter I have to thank them for A Slam Dunk for President Trumps second term. 

Then why are the doj in court arguing against ruling on subpoenas because they have no juridiction to be involved in political matters.

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

I hope the Republicans continue on the path they are on. It will show the country what they really are. 

I should have said what they have become,

a reactionary party with no core values other than obtaining and maintaining power and maintaining  their jobs with no regard for the country.

  Where are the core conservative values of reducing the debt? dignity, traditional family values?

  Please someone tell me what is it that makes  the pussy grabber, philandering porn star humpper,  wife divorcing, budget busting, treacherous reality show actor , a conservative republican ???? and why of the morally bankrupt  party support him??

[Berkshire]

16 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

3 hours ago, mercman24 said:

well on the outside looking in, it seems that other lot done <deleted> all in the 8 years they were in office, in 3 years this guy has turned the American economy around .

No Obama did. 

Yeap, it was Obama who turned the US economy around after the 2008 Financial Crisis (started under a Republican administration).  Trump inherited a strong economy and juiced it up artificially with massive corporate tax cuts which boosted the stock market but massively increased the US deficit.  He's also cut environmental regulations which has endangered our environment for generations.  Mercman should get educated instead of listening to Trump who's a pathological liar.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by Berkshire

[legend49]

8 hours ago, AlexRich said:

By the same token how qualified are Ivanka and Kuchner for the positions they hold? And were Qatar the victims of a “shakedown” over the Kuchner property loan?  

Just saying ; they attended Davos meeting, WHY?

[mrfill]

4 minutes ago, legend49 said:

Just saying ; they attended Davos meeting, WHY?

Because they got free flights? Perhaps the shops and restaurants in Davos are especially nice.

[Skeptic7]

I'm an American (USA) citizen and I want witnesses in any and all trials/cases. Witnesses provide crucial evidence that any honest person should want, regardless. The witnesses in the Trump impeachment will provide crucial evidence one way or the other. REGARDLESS of which partisan side of the aisle...EVERYONE SHOULD want to hear witness testimony, to bring out the facts and get to the truth. EVERYONE. 

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

the constitution does not consider it reasonable.

Really? Where? 

[Gweiloman]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I'm an American (USA) citizen and I want witnesses in any and all trials/cases. Witnesses provide crucial evidence that any honest person should want, regardless. The witnesses in the Trump impeachment will provide crucial evidence one way or the other. REGARDLESS of which partisan side of the aisle...EVERYONE SHOULD want to hear witness testimony, to bring out the facts and get to the truth. EVERYONE. 

Everyone who wants to know the truth wants that. The only ones that don’t agree are the guilty participants. 

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Because trump wont let them. Tells congress to go to court. Bit at the same time his doj is arguing the court has no juridiction.

 

Hypocrits.

Trump stopped them from taking him to court? You understand how ridiculous that is? 
 

How could Trump stop them from taking him to court?

 

[wwest5829]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

One of the allegations that came out of the House’s impeachment inquiry. 
 

Why did the House not take the time to hear all the witnesses they are demanding now? 

Because Trump forbade testimony.

[wwest5829]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Trump stopped them from taking him to court? You understand how ridiculous that is? 
 

How could Trump stop them from taking him to court?

 

Hmm, sorry but It appears you are not understanding what he wrote.

[mogandave]

13 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I'm an American (USA) citizen and I want witnesses in any and all trials/cases. Witnesses provide crucial evidence that any honest person should want, regardless. The witnesses in the Trump impeachment will provide crucial evidence one way or the other. REGARDLESS of which partisan side of the aisle...EVERYONE SHOULD want to hear witness testimony, to bring out the facts and get to the truth. EVERYONE. 

 

No one is stopping the witness testimony that the House used to impeach him. 

What crucial evidence is missing? Did the House not have an overwhelming amount of iron-clad evidence when they impeached him? All of that is admissible, yes? 

 

Seems you guys have all known the “truth” for the three years you’ve been calling for his impeachment, certainly long before this phone call debacle. 
 

This whole thing is I big nothing burger that the left wants to propagandize using their media. 

[Skeptic7]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

No one is stopping the witness testimony that the House used to impeach him. 

What crucial evidence is missing? Did the House not have an overwhelming amount of iron-clad evidence when they impeached him? All of that is admissible, yes? 

 

Seems you guys have all known the “truth” for the three years you’ve been calling for his impeachment, certainly long before this phone call debacle. 
 

This whole thing is I big nothing burger that the left wants to propagandize using their media. 

Some have been calling for impeachment for a long time. NOT all. If memory serves there was a minor figure on the Dem side...maybe you've heard her name...Nancy Pelosi?...that was against impeachment longer than almost anyone. There were others too.

 

And if it's such a "nothing burger" as you so astutely put it...then a "nothing burger" to worry about. No wrong doing...then nothing to hide and no witnesses can change that. 

 

The people want witnesses. The US Government is (supposed to be) of, by and for The People. Let's give the People what they want and get on with it. 

[mlmcleod]

There is no way in hell that the Republicans will allow witnesses to tell the truth at Trump's bogus impeachment trial.  I love that they keep harping that Hunter Biden should be included as a witness although he has no evidence to produce concerning Trump.  This so reminds me of the "what about Hillary's emails?" noise that the Republicans have spouted since the 2016 election.  Their approach is to baffle the public with excessive BS so they have no idea of the truth!

 

The founding fathers forgot about partisanship in the senate!

[Gweiloman]

I’m looking forward to the day when America can no longer claim to be a beacon of democracy. 

[CaptRon2]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Then why are the doj in court arguing against ruling on subpoenas because they have no juridiction to be involved in political matters.

Exactly, they are in court letting the judicial system make the decision, just like the Dems could have/should have done, but that would have interfered with their politically motivated time schedule.

Why would you expect the Republicans to clean up the mess the Dems handed them? 

  

[CaptRon2]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Trump is a criminal:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-tariffs-uk-iran-nuclear-deal-france-germany-eu-a9286496.html?fbclid=IwAR0JupSsMX8UeGBmbiIGwt3QK_5M7yiR9xFXN692klef58I1aMCYHbsSSUE

Congratulations Frits, on quoting an article that is founded on statements from more unnamed sources, in the real world all you are doing is repeating rumors. Your “Trump is a criminal” statement carries no weight and as usual you credibility contributes to diminish.

 

[Redline]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

One of the allegations that came out of the House’s impeachment inquiry. 
 

Why did the House not take the time to hear all the witnesses they are demanding now? 

Are you seriously lost?  Who has been cooperating ????

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m looking forward to the day when America can no longer claim to be a beacon of democracy. 

I don't share your ill wishes for the USA, but I think your wish has already been fulfilled to a great degree and will be cast in stone if 45 is reelected. 

 

It could be turned around with a massive renunciation of 45 in 2020 though so from my POV you are voicing support for his reelection. You're not alone with that. For example, Putin sees 45 as a way to show the world that the USA is no better ethically and morally than Russia and other autocratic regimes. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Jingthing

[AlexRich]

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

It’s only the left that thinks he’s a crook. 
 

To people not on the left, asking a foreign government to investigate possible corruption and interference with the 2016 election seems reasonable. 

I’m not on the left, and I’ve known him to be a crook since the 1980’s, when he first came to prominence ... 

 

It’s okay to think that Trump’s policies are good for your country, but not to excuse the obvious ... that he is a crook. He’s not alone, Putin, Duterte, Xi, etc. 

[AlexRich]

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

What positions do they hold? 

Positions of significant influence ... whatever the title, they have more than the Vice President. And if you are suggesting otherwise why did they require security clearance?

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Because Trump forbade testimony.

 

2 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Hmm, sorry but It appears you are not understanding what he wrote.

 

I think I do understand. He and you both seem to be claiming Trump can stop people from testifying, yes? 
 

But just like when Obama barred people from testifying by exerting executive privilege, it’s Trump’s legal right to force the House to go through the court and demonstrate a compelling reason why they need it. 
 

The house chose not to do this.

 

This President does not have to provide anything to the House until the Supreme Court says he has to, just like the last President.

[Jingthing]

23 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

I’m not on the left, and I’ve known him to be a crook since the 1980’s, when he first came to prominence ... 

 

It’s okay to think that Trump’s policies are good for your country, but not to excuse the obvious ... that he is a crook. He’s not alone, Putin, Duterte, Xi, etc. 

Yes.

Actually a significant portion of 45 fans well understand what 45 has done but sadly they don't care and are still standing by their man. 

 

Poll evidence in link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/22/sizable-chunk-trumps-base-thinks-he-has-broken-law-many-those-people-remain-his-corner/

Edited January 23, 2020 by Jingthing

[wwest5829]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

 

I think I do understand. He and you both seem to be claiming Trump can stop people from testifying, yes? 
 

But just like when Obama barred people from testifying by exerting executive privilege, it’s Trump’s legal right to force the House to go through the court and demonstrate a compelling reason why they need it. 
 

The house chose not to do this.

 

This President does not have to provide anything to the House until the Supreme Court says he has to, just like the last President.

No previous President has ever issued a blanket refusal to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas. As to whether The Donald must comply, that is still pending before the courts as a contested point of law. No President can exert Executive Privilege without showing a direct relationship. No President is above the law.  It is therefore false to claim he does not have to provide information to Congress. It is the Congress which has the power under the Constitution to oversee wrongdoing Of a President not the courts. The Judicial Branch only adjudicates the law, not the accusations brought forth by Congress.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

No previous President has ever issued a blanket refusal to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas. As to whether The Donald must comply, that is still pending before the courts as a contested point of law. No President can exert Executive Privilege without showing a direct relationship. No President is above the law.  It is therefore false to claim he does not have to provide information to Congress. It is the Congress which has the power under the Constitution to oversee wrongdoing Of a President not the courts. The Judicial Branch only adjudicates the law, not the accusations brought forth by Congress.

Presidents under impeachment (before 45!) have treated impeachment investigations to be at another level where they need to cooperate. Of course there haven't been many of them. 45 has stonewalled completely and indeed is bizarrely making the argument that impeachment is not constitutional. So if this goes as it seems to be going, a sham acquittal in the senate, it's basically a precedent for some very horrible things. Republicans should normally be against these things but they're under his fear boot.

 

-- Impeachment unconstitutional

-- Presidential privilege to stonewall documents and witnesses expanded to 100 percent levels

-- Congressional oversight of the executive finished.

-- Presidents above all laws.

-- Changing the U.S. presidency into a virtual total monarchy / elected dictatorship

 

45 fans -- be careful what you wish for. You like this guy. You may not like a future president that takes advantages of these very undemocratic precedents. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes.

Actually a significant portion of 45 fans well understand what 45 has done but sadly they don't care and are still standing by their man. 

Not entirely true, My neighbor in NY (before i sold my house there) and good friend (i stay at their house when ever in NY) is a Republican  Orange county  legislator, her Mom was a long time, now retired, republican county commissioner.  I disagree with their politics, as I am sure they disagree with mine, but we like and respect each other. 

When trump was first elected, a Trump flag flew in their front lawn , the flag has since then come down , and the only way I have heard them describe trump is  "embarrassing".

A lot of these "trump supporters" at this point do not support trump, they are unwilling to admit that they were had.

As far as politicians are concerned , like everyone else , have a front stage persona and a backstage persona, to do the things they want to do they need to be invited to the dance and  they have to survive within the environment they live in.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Not entirely true, My neighbor in NY (before i sold my house there) and good friend (i stay at their house when ever in NY) is a Republican  Orange county  legislator, her Mom was a long time, now retired, republican county commissioner.  I disagree with their politics, as I am sure they disagree with mine, but we like and respect each other. 

When trump was first elected, a Trump flag flew in their front lawn , the flag has since then come down , and the only way I have heard them describe trump is  "embarrassing".

A lot of these "trump supporters" at this point do not support trump, they are unwilling to admit that they were had.

As far as politicians are concerned , like everyone else , have a front stage persona and a backstage persona, to do the things they want to do they need to be invited to the dance and  they have to survive within the environment they live in.

Huh?

If someone is no longer a 45 fan then that person is not included in descriptions of 45 fans.

Polls have shown his core base has been mostly steady with fluctuations showing little loss and even less gains. Of course it never goes to 50 percent and never will. Currently I think it's about 42 percent. Yes it's still shocking that a president with such low support can still win the presidency but based on the electoral structure, yes she still can. 

But my post was obviously about people that can be described NOW as 45 fans. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Huh?

If someone is no longer a 45 fan then that person is not included in descriptions of 45 fans.

Polls have shown his core base has been mostly steady with little loss and even less gains

But my post was obviously about people that can be described NOW as 45 fans. 

It is my opinion that poles only reflect what people are willing to publicly admit, I believe  and I am sure that in the privacy of the polling booth, if given a viable option they will react differently.

[Jingthing]

Just now, sirineou said:

It is my opinion that poles only reflect what people are willing to publicly admit, I believe  and I am sure that in the privacy of the polling booth, if given a viable option they will react differently.

Well I think polls still have value. Yes 45's win in 2016 was a shock but in general the national polls got it amazingly correct. They predicted the popular vote win quite well down the number of millions margin. What they failed at was much much harder to predict. A historic black swan almost fluke that won based on a tiny number of votes (about 70,000) in only four states. To expect polling organizations to have predicted that would be entirely unreasonable.