Check out some similar questions!

Wondergirl · Dec 31, 2019, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you have evidence of that, then call the House dems immediately. They couldn't find any. As I've been saying, I'm waiting on the name(s).

Oh, they have witnesses but trump says they can't testify. Wonder why....

paraclete · Dec 31, 2019, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Oh, they have witnesses but trump says they can't testify. Wonder why....

probably because they know nothing but hearsay gossip at the watercooler isn't evidence

Wondergirl · Dec 31, 2019, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

probably because they know nothing but hearsay gossip at the watercooler isn't evidence

Or ...they know something that will convict him.

jlisenbe · Dec 31, 2019, 07:16 PM

Oh, they have witnesses but trump says they can't testify.

Take that suggestion into any court of law and see how far it gets you. "Your Honor, we know the defendant is guilty because of some things that some people who have not testified are possibly going to say." Good grief. Yet another appearance of the "We hate Trump" syndrome.

Wondergirl · Dec 31, 2019, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Take that suggestion into any court of law and see how far it gets you. "Your Honor, we know the defendant is guilty because of some things that some people who have not testified are possibly going to say." Good grief. Yet another appearance of the "We hate Trump" syndrome.

"In a letter sent Monday to all 99 of his chamber colleagues, Schumer continued to outline his case for why they need specific documents and testimony from certain witnesses who were directed by the White House not to comply with the House's impeachment inquiry."

"Until Pelosi transmits the impeachment articles to the Senate, a trial cannot begin.
She has said she'll transfer the articles once McConnell can assure a "fair trial" will take place by outlining the rules for witnesses before it commences."

https://www.newsweek.com/whats-next-...nesses-1478867

jlisenbe · Dec 31, 2019, 07:51 PM

"Until Pelosi transmits the impeachment articles to the Senate, a trial cannot begin.
She has said she'll transfer the articles once McConnell can assure a "fair trial" will take place by outlining the rules for witnesses before it commences."

Show me where in the Constitution it gives the SOTH any authority to decide how an impeachment trial will precede in the Senate.

It's just dirty, stinkin politics. In the meantime, we spend borrowed money like drunken sailors. Pitiful.

Wondergirl · Dec 31, 2019, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Show me where in the Constitution it gives the SOTH any authority to decide how an impeachment trial will precede in the Senate.

It's just dirty, stinkin politics. In the meantime, we spend borrowed money like drunken sailors. Pitiful.

Moscow Mitch is required by the Constitution to assure a fair trial.

Ah, you want an unfair trial! I get it!

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said last week that she was "disturbed" to hear McConnell say he would work in "total coordination" with the president’s defense team.

jlisenbe · Dec 31, 2019, 08:34 PM

Moscow Mitch is required by the Constitution to assure a fair trial.

No, he's actually not. A trial, yes, but it is never said that it must be fair. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

And if you are really concerned with fairness, which I'm not sure that you are, you would have already spoken up about the kangaroo court which went on in the House.

And again, show me where in the Constitution it gives the SOTH any authority to decide how an impeachment trial will precede in the Senate.

This is just all about a hatred of Trump. Dems were calling for his impeachment within weeks of his election for supposedly accepting help from Russia. When that fell on its face, they they went on to quid pro quo. When that fell on its face, they ended up with the nonsense they now have. It's pitiful.

paraclete · Dec 31, 2019, 10:00 PM

It's pitiful.

pitiful it may be but it is politics. no one said it had to be fair, honest or even truthful

talaniman · Jan 1, 2020, 07:55 AM

Everybody in politics says it's fair and honest what they're doing. Let's not forget that in 2018 Americans voted enough repubs out and dems into the House to reduce the dufus and repubs power in our government. Fair or not, honest or not, the dufus was impeached, and it doesn't matter what repubs and his sycophants say about it, as they did the Mueller Report that went way above the publics head, but still laid out a roadmap of wrong doing that has lead to the dufus being impeached because he was too dumb to be grateful that he dodged a bullet, and kept engaging in unlawful acts mainly abuse of power with the Ukraine debacle, and obstructing the congress in it's oversight duties concerning that debacle.

He basically impeached himself since he had no answers for any of his actions that could pass the smell test. If you were holding your nose you missed all that, and made the huge mistake of listening to the lies of the dufus and his sycophants. So while the dufus does the Russian's business, which you righties ignore and dismiss, Moscow Mitch and the senate are put front and center of organizing a trail that looks fair, and honest.

Yeah it is all about the politics in this election year, and everybody is watching what happens next. What more could you ask for as we start a new decade! 8D

jlisenbe · Jan 1, 2020, 08:09 AM

Still waiting on that name. Without that, you only have baseless accusations based on Trump hatred.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2020, 08:17 AM

The testimony of 17 people saying basically the same thing is compelling enough in any court of law in the land. Always has been, always will be. Certainly enough to impeach and bring charges. You should have figured that out with all the charges the dufus faced before he became president.

Why are you so surprised that this pattern continues?

jlisenbe · Jan 1, 2020, 08:43 AM

The testimony of 17 people saying basically the same thing is compelling enough in any court of law in the land.

But that's your whole problem. You had seventeen people all saying, "I have no direct knowledge of any wrong-doing on the part of the president." Now guess what that will get you in any court of law. "Case dismissed!"

That's why you cannot provide a single name of a witness who had first hand knowledge of anything significant. Now you did have both the PM and Foreign Minister of Ukraine saying there was no quid pro quo. You also had a witness saying that Trump directly told him the same thing. So yeah, you have no case to speak of. Trump Derangement Syndrome. That's why Pelosi seems so afraid to give the "case" to the Senate. She knows they have nothing. The American people know they have nothing. I know they have nothing, and I suspect you know the same thing.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2020, 09:40 AM

That's not the way the law works anywhere dude. If 15 people say they thought they saw you J walking then the cops can ask you if you were. If the cops don't believe you, then they investigate, like find evidence or such. Well we have that evidence in the form of how the dufus conducted himself and I have cited he broke the Impound Acts law. He did not notify the congress of changes he made to an appropriation that HE signed into law. That's the abuse of power charge dude, plain and simple for you.

Not allowing the House to investigate, by testimony or documents is the obstruction of congress charge, plain and simple even for you loonies to understand. As we move to the TRIAL phase the senate will vote on the structure and rules of that trail no different than has been done before. It really is that simple JL no matter the gobble de goop you keep trying to throw at us that at this point is irrelevant.

Those names you wait for and evidence presented are the province of the senate trial now since the Impeach part has been DONE! You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and rhetoric, but it's the lawful process that goes forward without you, no matter what the outcome. The House never had to prove anything to bring charges, NO prosecutor ever does, as very different to charge than convict, and so we await the next steps in the process.

See how simple that is? Sorry if you can't wait to get those names and maybe you never will but obviously the law has moved past that point and the process continues. I know politics at play with both sides trying to make their points for the public and their own agendas.

jlisenbe · Jan 1, 2020, 12:58 PM

That's not the way the law works anywhere dude. If 15 people say they thought they saw you J walking then the cops can ask you if you were.

Actually, that's how it works everywhere. Try getting on the witness stand and saying you THOUGHT you saw someone do something. Your testimony will be completely discredited. This has nothing to do with a cop asking you something, but if he did, guess what? You don't have to answer. You are not responsible to demonstrate your own guilt. You need to learn a few things about law.

Honestly Tal, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is the House's job to investigate. They can then present their evidence to the Senate who rules on it. The Senate is not there to investigate. We have gone through this for months and months. Millions of dollars have been spent. The money in contention was paid to Ukraine. Trump did the same thing Biden did and not one virtuous dem complained about that, so you just don't have a case. The problem is that dems hate Trump and are prepared to do anything to get him out of office. It's just stinkin politics.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2020, 01:21 PM

There you go ignore facts again. The House has impeached and sets the stage for a trial where they present the evidence to the senate. We all know the senate has noting else to do but hear it, no investigations by them is needed. Done deal, so yes as a pretrial protocal the senators must agree on the rules by which the trial should be conducted on. That's where we are at.

What part of that is it you are not understanding?

jlisenbe · Jan 1, 2020, 01:34 PM

There you go ignore facts again. The House has impeached and sets the stage for a trial where they present the evidence to the senate. We all know the senate has noting else to do but hear it, no investigations by them is needed. Done deal, so yes as a pretrial protocal the senators must agree on the rules by which the trial should be conducted on. That's where we are at.

Fair enough, but that's the core of my question. Give me the name of even one witness who has first hand knowledge of the president's guilt and we'll have something to talk about. You keep bringing up the non-witnesses and what you think they might know. You say the Senate has "nothing else to do but hear it," so that being the case, all they can hear is what the House has now. That's basically next to nothing.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2020, 02:03 PM

That's where we disagree greatly in what has already been testified to and documented. While I must conceed easily the dufus has a right to his court hearings about his ability to keep people from testifying and even the documents he must produce, I do not conceed the congress has NO right to bring charges it has documented despite the dufus's tactics. I have already warned you that a few rulings in that regard are about to be announced sometimes this month, and the dufus has the right of appeal if he chooses to exercise it, further delaying any forthcoming order of the court, but the process is the process and the House has an obligation to do as they deem necessary.

The elections of 2018 has it's consequences, as do all elections. I respectfully submit the American people changed the balance of power in the House knowing full well dems were going to check the dufus as laid out by our constitution.

jlisenbe · Jan 1, 2020, 02:24 PM

Well, I'm still waiting for that name. To me, when you cannot find a single witness who can say he witnessed or heard the Pres say or do something illegal, then I don't see how you have a case. It would not work in any court in America. Surely the pres should have the same justice accorded to him as other Americans have, even by those who hate him.

Wondergirl · Jan 1, 2020, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, I'm still waiting for that name. To me, when you cannot find a single witness who can say he witnessed or heard the Pres say or do something illegal, then I don't see how you have a case. It would not work in any court in America. Surely the pres should have the same justice accorded to him as other Americans have, even by those who hate him.

Here are three:

Former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

Trump won't allow them to testify.