Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by bb1961

From the guy who raw dogs fat nasty whales...are cows next??

If you could see what I mean, you'd laugh. I won't ignore or block anyone. This shit is fun.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Now you're just missing a period and a question mark. You preggers?

You would vote Pence although you agree with nothing he stands for...GOTCHA
You still haven't explained how the legislative branch can tell the executive branch what they must do...YOU FUCKING CAN'T YOU BLATHERING NUT!!
Just like impeach and not immediately proceed to the Senate...you're a the genius.

[Chung Tran]

Ha!

I get to see the nasty fat whales comment, since it was quoted, LOL..

I will take my Whales (the nasty ones, in particular) over your sessions you are rightly embarrassed to post.. the sessions where you are anally sodomized by ISIS Soldiers, and pay them double their posted fee because you enjoyed them so much!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. Witnesses can create an "issue" where there is NONE!

To follow the rubric of a criminal proceeding (and let the LIBERAL LOONS start claiming it's not a "criminal proceeding" after they've been shouting CRIME FOR YEARS NOW!!!!) ......

From a lefty loon to a psyco righty,

If this was a criminal proceeding he would be facing time or sanctions. It's only an attempt to remove him from office and keep him from any office of honor and trust.

If he did shoot somebody in broad daylight on fifth avenue, as POTUS, he wouldn't be facing time or sanctions. Certainly not with his replacement chief of law enforcement. That Barr is so low.

He would first be removed by the legislature, then prosecuted by the judicial. This is a court of public opinion. It only took two years for the jurors to send their representatives in a blue wave to remove his ass. This is just. Too bad the Senate didn't get a blue tsunami.


...the procedural process is to allow the government to "shoot its wad" and then seek an instructed verdict without offering any refuting testimony based on the FACT that no offense has been charged to support a conviction and there is NO CRIME AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Offering any controverting evidence only gives the LAME STREAM MEDIA AND THEIR STUPID TV PERSONALITIES an opportunity to LIE some more to the U.S. voters about what witnesses have said and to what they testify under oath. The IDIOTS ON HERE who support impeachment actually believe and post on here what THE LAME STREAM MEDIA reports was said under oath and if they don't have live feeds of it .... they just report what the LOONY fools "believe" they meant to say!!!

I hope for their sanity when the alleged "witnesses" and "operatives" are prosecuted the Government gives them all the due process to which they are entitled including THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE to which all people are entitled in the U.S., including the Illegal Aliens they are encouraging to come to this country to lie and vote for them to keep them in office (after all .... 99% of the Illegal Aliens are accustomed to living in a country with corrupt law makers and judges).

Don't let anyone convince you this is a criminal prosecution.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The house is well within their power to do what they are doing.

Actually you're quite wrong. The manner in which the House has been engaging in this impeachment hearing is quite partisan in nature. You're quite blinded by all this because this administration is contrary to your world view like it is so many others. Impeachment should not be based on opinions and personal feelings.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by bb1961

You would vote Pence although you agree with nothing he stands for...GOTCHA

Where did that come from?

You still haven't explained how the legislative branch can tell the executive branch what they must do...YOU FUCKING CAN'T YOU BLATHERING NUT!!

Not what they can do. But just follow the limits of the Constitution.

Checks and Balances

https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/...s-and-balances

Just like impeach and not immediately proceed to the Senate...you're a the genius.

Did you have a TV trying to grow up? Any schools where you were born?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Actually you're quite wrong. The manner in which the House has been engaging in this impeachment hearing is quite partisan in nature. You're quite blinded by all this because this administration is contrary to your world view like it is so many others. Impeachment should not be based on opinions and personal feelings.

Thanks for the respectability. I reciprocate.

As partisan as it may be, the manner, as you put it, has been within the rules of the majority. You're just "enraged" because the people spoke in 2018. I don't blame you. The House does not comport with your view of fairness. This impeachment is based on the fact that the president doesn't give equal stature to the people. Representative in the Congress. He continues to abuse his power.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Actually you're quite wrong. The manner in which the House has been engaging in this impeachment hearing is quite partisan in nature. You're quite blinded by all this because this administration is contrary to your world view like it is so many others. Impeachment should not be based on opinions and personal feelings.

Levianon, how many Senate votes for acquittal would you consider total victory for trump?

Hypothetically trump can remain in office with 66 votes against him. I wouldn’t consider that a win for trump but he’ll remain in office.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

There was nothing legal about holding money already appropriated from an ally already certified to have passed corruption standards.

I think this is the part that people such as yourself, no disrespect intended, don't understand. Show me the legal statute that says a President can not hold up funds already appropriated by Congress. If you can do THAT instead of your simplistic statement that a President can't legally do it, you might be persuasive but what you just said is not persuasive. But being the nice guy that I am, I'll see if I can help you out. Even though you didn't cite it, this seems to be what you are refereeing to.


https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press...ion-benchmarks

DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks

Now ask yourself which branch of government does the DOD fall under? In my opinion, that would be the Executive branch and who is in charge of the Executive branch of government and is Commander-in-Chief? That would be Trump. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the DOD over rule the President? But lets say my reasoning is no better than yours. What to do? The answer to that is to ask the SC to settle the matter just like the SC will now settle the matter of whether Trump must release his bank records. The Congress has now decided to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress for ignoring subpoena's ( like Obama did ) but the SC will now decide the matter, not Congress. You see, all of these matters can be determined by the courts like the Constitution provides. When the Executive and the Congress have a dispute, the SC settles it, you don't impeach a President because you think he has done something illegal but can't cite the legal statute he violated. Or can you? I'm always prepared to make an apology if it can be proven I'm wrong.







I have shown you a few times now that Obama abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress when he refused to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious case and his Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress with a bi-partisan vote. Why wasn't Obama impeached for obstruction of Congress?


Again, the purpose of "whataboutism" is to show hypocrisy. Why should I agree to punish one person, one party when the other has done the very same thing with no call from their party to punish? To me and many like me I'm sure, it really doesn't matter what Trump has done, OK that's a bit to broad, it doesn't matter in this instance because this so called abuse of power and obstruction of Congress was done by Obama and plenty of other Presidents without a call for impeachment. According to the polls, more Americans understand this better than you seem to and are saying "no impeachment" you want Trump out of office, vote him out.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

I was watching OAN and they had three people in mind but the big one was the former Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden got fired. Shokin has contacted Adam Schiff but the chairman of the intelligence committee was not interested. Now he says he is available for the Senate hearing. He will testify that he was investigating Hunter Biden when he was told by the former president of the Ukraine to "slow down". When he didn't he was fired within six hours of Biden's threat to with hold the aid package.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

they were all blocked from appearing before the Committee.. why do you guys continue this charade? you know damn well what happened

all we have is the phone transcript.. God damn it, what else do we need?

Exactly! What else do we need? The phone transcript verified by the guy that told the WB about the phone call Lt. Colonel Vindman said that when he looked at the "transcribed" phone record, he suggested two minor corrections that would not substantively change the meaning or understanding of the call and yet for weeks the Democrats were saying it wasn't a complete transcript, that those Republicans were hiding the full transcript in a secret safe and we can't see it. But the stupid Democrats failed to understand that there were multiple people on the call and nobody, not Lt. Colonel Vindman or anybody else that was on the call has suggested that anything substantially different was left out of the call.


So we have the call. Why did we have to go through all those hearings from Ambassadors and biased to an uncomfortable extreme Constitutional law Professors to tell us what each and every one of us could read for ourselves and decide if it reached the level of an impeachable offense. But you see, in my opinion, the Democrats knew that what was said on the call wasn't an impeachable offense, so much so that Adam Schiff had to make up an alternative phone call because the real one wasn't good enough for impeachment.


Schiff could have just read the phone transcript and called for a vote and we would be at the very same place we are at right now.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I was watching OAN and they had three people in mind but the big one was the former Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden got fired. Shokin has contacted Adam Schiff but the chairman of the intelligence committee was not interested. Now he says he is available for the Senate hearing. He will testify that he was investigating Hunter Biden when he was told by the former president of the Ukraine to "slow down". When he didn't he was fired within six hours of Biden's threat to with hold the aid package.

Wouldn't that be some "must see TV"!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I think this is the part that people such as yourself, no disrespect intended, don't understand. Show me the legal statute that says a President can not hold up funds already appropriated by Congress. If you can do THAT instead of your simplistic statement that a President can't legally do it, you might be persuasive but what you just said is not persuasive. But being the nice guy that I am, I'll see if I can help you out. Even though you didn't cite it, this seems to be what you are refereeing to.


https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press...ion-benchmarks





Now ask yourself which branch of government does the DOD fall under? In my opinion, that would be the Executive branch and who is in charge of the Executive branch of government and is Commander-in-Chief? That would be Trump. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the DOD over rule the President? But lets say my reasoning is no better than yours. What to do? The answer to that is to ask the SC to settle the matter just like the SC will now settle the matter of whether Trump must release his bank records. The Congress has now decided to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress for ignoring subpoena's ( like Obama did ) but the SC will now decide the matter, not Congress. You see, all of these matters can be determined by the courts like the Constitution provides. When the Executive and the Congress have a dispute, the SC settles it, you don't impeach a President because you think he has done something illegal but can't cite the legal statute he violated. Or can you? I'm always prepared to make an apology if it can be proven I'm wrong.







I have shown you a few times now that Obama abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress when he refused to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious case and his Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress with a bi-partisan vote. Why wasn't Obama impeached for obstruction of Congress?


Again, the purpose of "whataboutism" is to show hypocrisy. Why should I agree to punish one person, one party when the other has done the very same thing with no call from their party to punish? To me and many like me I'm sure, it really doesn't matter what Trump has done, OK that's a bit to broad, it doesn't matter in this instance because this so called abuse of power and obstruction of Congress was done by Obama and plenty of other Presidents without a call for impeachment. According to the polls, more Americans understand this better than you seem to and are saying "no impeachment" you want Trump out of office, vote him out.

I'll address this later. I need to step away for a few hours. I think it would have been really, really ugly trying to impeach Obama. Honestly, it could have been painted along racial lines. Not party lines. As erroneous as it mighy have been to think that, the base is the base for a reason.

[HedonistForever]

My bet right now is that the Democrats will get their say, repeating nothing new but the same crap they have been repeating, They will not be able to call any of those so called witnesses with "hearsay" information. There will be no Constitutional scholars to hear from. Who does that leave Sondland and maybe if the court rules that subpoenas by Congress must be respected we'll get Mulvaney and Bolton but wait, will the minority be able to subpoena anybody they want? I don't think so. Republicans couldn't subpoena in the House without the approval of the majority. I think it works the same way in the Senate. The Dem's say "I want to subpoena Bolton" and the majority says no!


No matter, when the Dem's are done repeating what they have already said McConnell or is it Graham, will call for a vote and not present a single witness. This seems to be the majority opinion and advice that I am hearing from many Republicans. Trump of course says he wants the WB and the Bidens on trial but I've heard a number of Republicans saying that might damage chances of keeping the Senate if Republicans look as bad as Democrats did in the House. We shall see.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'll address this later. I need to step away for a few hours. I think it would have been really, really ugly trying to impeach Obama. Honestly, it could have been painted along racial lines. Not party lines. As erroneous as it might have been to think that, the base is the base for a reason.

Yeah, Black would be "uglier" than Orange any day. Quips aside, this is pretty damn ugly.


I guess we better not elect Buttigieg. What's the pecking order for Liberals? Would impeaching a Black over a Gay be worse or vice versa. Lord help us when the first Trans is elected. "It" will be able to do anything "it" wants without reprisal.


"You live by identity politics, you die by identity politics".