trump Inpeachment...............

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Im with you ... Im 100% fine with Bidens, Trump, Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton testifying under oath.

Edit: i realize this is a little moving the bars fallacy, but it is extending the thought of what is a "fair trial"

- in a "real trial"(which this is not) suppose the ACCUSED(president) feels that the STATE(house managers) did not meet their burden of proof and rejects additional witnesses, in a regular trial a JUDGE/JURORS (senators) can't and would not ask for more prosecution witnesses, that would be generally seen as an unfair trial.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.

What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

If there is something more, Id love to see it.

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."

Go back now and look at testimony as well as interviews within the Obama administration that had serious problems with hunter Biden involved in a corrupt oligarchs company who came to the executive branch from the state department and were told to fuck off.

Hunter Biden is the guy liberals want don Jr to be...but look at the track record.

What a piece of shit, garbage human being.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

[sdskinsfan2001]

I'm retiring from this thread or any political thread. We all are who we are. No minds are being changed here. And it's probably a good thing an internet thread doesn't make us waffle.

I genuinely like every one that post on this site regularly. Look forward to talking about th Skins, music, tv, etc.


HTTR!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

I've said it before I'm all for it

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

Not what he said or asked ?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by mooby

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses - but not ANY witnesses - Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.

[CRedskinsRule]

I have another discussion question?

We all assume Bolton would confirm the NYT report.

Hypothetically, let's assume his testimony and his book are admitted into evidence, and the NYT got it wrong and Bolton testifies there was no linkage. Would that be enough proof to end the trial and acquit?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses - but not ANY witnesses - Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.

You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have another discussion question?

We all assume Bolton would confirm the NYT report.

Hypothetically, let's assume his testimony and his book are admitted into evidence, and the NYT got it wrong and Bolton testifies there was no linkage. Would that be enough proof to end the trial and acquit?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

No, Trumps defense has already argued that a POTUS asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections should not be an impeachable offence. Republicans will agree and acquit because they know the vast sea their Trump loyalist base would not re-elect them if they turn on Trump. This really is all about the power of the Cult of Trump and how many Republican politicians - most of whom HATED Trump and opposed his presidential bid until he became the nominee - have no spine whatsoever.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process

its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.

What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.

Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.



What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.



Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.

The question about Hunter Biden is relevant because the house managers claim that there was 0 justification for a request to investigate, which goes to motive.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Maybe the senate should vote to send it back to the house to do more investigation. I do believe it sets a terrible precedent for the House to fast track impeachment hearings.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk