GOP should allow more witnesses!!!

So what has changed? The Democrats in the House decided not to wait for the SCOTUS to settle the matter. Now these same partisan dems want the Senate to do what they refused to do? They can pound sand. The dems said they had an iron clad case against Trump, now suddenly they don't?

 

Then cite proof of your speculations and opinions. I know you cannot, so you are just trolling. Okay, maybe not trolling, but obviously stamping your feet and throwing hissy fits.

I have posted many times that ALL foreign aid was being held up with the July 27th memo, not just aid to Ukraine. So don't conflate and spin.

 

Mulvaney admitted to Trump's actions and said "all Presidents do it, get over it".

 

When did he say that.

 

All Presidents do place conditions on US aid, since there is no Constitutional right for foreign countries to receive US taxpayer money.

 

Is this all you do, spin, conflate and draw speculative assumptions?

Mulvaneny was speaking in general, concerning how all presidents handle aid to foreign nations. He did not say Trump blackmailed Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, or no aid.

 

I doubt we'll see any additional witnesses for one reason:

The Senate will remain under Senate impeachment rules until any litigation is finished.

No Chocolate milk from bottles, and no speaking, and you must be seated all day, for months on end.

 

He's just spinning and conflating, spewing out one silly conspiracy theory after another. I just do not know if he is misled, or purposefully repeating things he knows are false.

 

It makes sense when you realize it's just regurgitation of talking points they haven't bothered learning about.

 

Yep. Making aid conditional on a change of behavior (or quid pro quo) is the standard practice in foreign policy. Having Bolton testify that Trump did what is customary will only drag trial out closer to the election before Trump gets acquitted.

 

I know. I've lost track for the number of times these forum members have regurgitated the talking point "Sondland understood there was a quid pro quo by Trump," because they have never seen the testimony where Sondland admitted he only "presumed" those things, and no one on planet earth ever told him.

The same for claiming witnesses said the call transcript was inaccurate. People only got half the story, and never read the testimony, nor saw the video where these witnesses had to admit the transcript was "very accurate."

 

I'll be surprised if there aren't at least three Democrats voting "No" on witnesses to counter Murkowsky, Collins, and Romney. The defense attorneys and Republican Senators are trying to tell the Dems the consequences of calling more witnesses which the House should have called. This trial will go months and months longer. Still there will be no way that 67 Senators will vote to remove from outcome. Lots more time for no change in outcome.

At this point the table is turning, and more witnesses is beginning to sound like a benefit to Republicans who now have majority votes.

 

Democrats in Congress who voted for impeachment (I.E. "Public Officials exempted in the PF rules for insults, short of calls to violence, for anyone who hasn't read the rules) are morons.

They tried to impeach the POTUS in the one area he has the most authority: foreign policy.

 

Yeah there's really only two options:

1. They truth bounces off their forehead
2. They know the truth, and ignore it

 

EXACTLY.

I've intentionally not brought that up, because I expect it to bring me much laughter in the future and I didn't want to give it away.

 

You'd hope that the Dem-leaning members here could figure it out....even if their leadership in Washington is "dug in" and can't go backwards on "witnesses and documents" without losing face. But the fact is that Republicans now have votes to acquit and they also have a 50% majority on most votes.

 

That's the problem...they demand the collective acts and thinks as one in furtherance of a goal.

It doesn't matter what that goal is, what the law is, what logic is or what reality itself is.

They will ignore it all in mindless pursuit of an outcome.

 

Hell, they impeached him simply for asserting every President's Right to Executive Privilege from house overreach

 

Well, it would be much more convenient if they could arrest you and then put you in jail when you asked for a lawyer.

 

There's a third option, they are simply misinformed, and repeating to us what they think is the truth. They trust the false news they are watching and believe it to be truthful and honest.

These people watch partisan Democrats in the news media spin a distorted version of the news. They leave out exculpatory evidence for Trump, and only feed their audience half truths which further their political agenda.

 

Yeah but the problem with that is, when listening to the fake news, your average person is going to have thoughts and questions.

They don't seem to have any desire or ability to apply any kind of critical thinking.

 

Only a guilty person would defend themselves from what they see as illegal search and seizure. An innocent person would welcome an enemy to invade their privacy, even after they publicly said they want to destroy them.

 

Anybody know if we can volunteer to have troops quartered in our house?

I want to get ahead of this guilt thing.

 

I suppose, at some point, an intelligent person would become self aware that they are being misled.

It's just that i have met people who really believe the false narratives sold by the broadcast and liberal cable news media. It's all they know and they never once questioned it. Some of these people have been close friends or relatives I only see once in a few years.

They look shocked when I actually show them the truth, and they will still push back at first, refusing to believe it. I'll think you showed them the light and now they will question what they read or hear, and search for the truth themselves. But sadly, some never learn, and a year later they are back to believing lies and half truths. Why? Maybe they thought what I showed them was a one off, and they think it won't happen again? I don't know.

 

I still don't understand why the White House doesn't want anyone to testify.

What are they hiding?

If they've done nothing wrong then let the people who work for our government testify.

I reiterate we are paying their salaries.