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

[oeb11]

I hope and believe that you are wrong about that - CT
Republicans will take the high ground and conduct a trial as you describe - and you describe well how the house committees operated! "abuse that control and refuse to hear from real witnesses"

[Chung Tran]

I will eat crow if I'm wrong.. I think the political structure is so damaged, a true impartial hearing may be impossible.. early rhetoric suggests I'm probably right.

it's kind of funny how we are discussing this, with 100% certainty Trump will be impeached this week.

I will say the bullshit backlash against the Senate Committee "working with" the White House is ridiculous.. it's about coordination, how the fuck are they supposed to conduct things without some input?

[HedonistForever]

I'll ask again, what if all those persons Democrats want called say the same thing, that yes indeed, the President asked for an investigation of Joe Biden who demanded and got a quid pro quo, the firing of an official in the Ukraine government in return for money promised to help fight the dastardly Russians. Holding up those funds as Trump is accused of doing for any purpose is a threat to our national security the Democrats howl. So why isn't Biden's threat of holding back money necessary for the fight also a threat to our national security and a threat to the security of Ukraine?




Did Joe Biden with his demand no matter who or how many supported it, commit the act of bribery whether with good intention or not? Who shall decide? Well, before any decision comes an investigation. The prima facie case is right there for all to debate.


So we find out from Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton that yes indeed, President Trump with the authority given to him by article two of the Constitution and by recently signed treaty purportedly giving the President the right to ask for an end to corruption in the Ukraine before any more dollars are released, did just that? Has that advanced the argument beyond what we already know? Is that impeachable? I and apparently many others say no. Nothing will change with testimony that Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing and no, it is not impeachable, simply as that. You may not like what he did but Democrats have not liked one single thing this President has done from the day he took office.


Unless and until somebody can point to a specific crime and make the case that this crime was committed by the President, impeachment for abuse of power, is in fact an abuse of power by the House for clearly partisan reasons wanting to get rid of Trump.


Now to the argument of an investigation of Joe Biden being "helpful" to Trump's re-election. What if an investigation proved Joe Biden innocent of any charge? Would that help Trump or more likely hurt Trump? My argument that merely calling for an investigation is no guarantee or worry for that matter. What if an investigation proves that Joe Biden acted un-lawfully or at best un-ethicaly and we now find a newly elected Republican House wanted to bring articles of impeachment against the new President Joe Biden?


This can be nothing more than a circular firing squad. We are 11 months from the election when all Americans can decide whether Trump deserves to be punished for his perceived sins or win a second term. Let the people decide whether what Trump did means his removal from office.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I will eat crow if I'm wrong.. I think the political structure is so damaged, a true impartial hearing may be impossible.. early rhetoric suggests I'm probably right.

it's kind of funny how we are discussing this, with 100% certainty Trump will be impeached this week.

I will say the bullshit backlash against the Senate Committee "working with" the White House is ridiculous.. it's about coordination, how the fuck are they supposed to conduct things without some input?

Now there is some sound reasoning. It is so laughable that Democrats are howling "you are making up your mind before all the evidence has been heard". We have all, who paid attention and that would be damn few from what I hear, heard the evidence. The President asked for an investigation and held up money until he got an assurance there would be an investigation not assurance of an outcome as Adam Schiff has said in his parody but a lawful investigation of the possibility that Joe Biden acted inappropriately, a word used by many against Trump but not illegally. How does that hurt Biden and help Trump unless of course one is worried that Biden will be found to have acted against the law and just because he did what Obama told him to do and other world leaders agreed, was still unlawful, the act of a bribe, money for an official act.


Asking the President if he wants to mount a defense is not an unreasonable thing. As a matter of fact, it is a proper act.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

"Where's the witness that started this ?"

You mean the whistleblower? He probably still has his govt job doing nothing now.

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

yup.. nobody had a retort, other than the same stupid memes. same tactic as always.

I think all the knowledgeable folks should be called.. Bolton, Pompeo, Hunter, Rudy.. hear from everyone, full transparency.

You're never going to get "full transparency." You can't handle "full transparency." Would you even know "full transparency" if you saw it?

Calling any witnesses in the Senate opens this up to being a circus.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

why isn't Biden's threat of holding back money necessary for the fight also a threat to our national security and a threat to the security of Ukraine?

are you asking me? I said months ago the Bidens should be in Prison.

Now to the argument of an investigation of Joe Biden being "helpful" to Trump's re-election. What if an investigation proved Joe Biden innocent of any charge? Would that help Trump or more likely hurt Trump?

it wouldn't matter, because as Trump knows full well, that exoneration would come too late for the 2020 election. the "helpful" part is Ukraine SAYING they were investigating. no evidence suggests Trump wanted them to actually start one. Hell, Rudy was already doing his own, for months.. better question is why didn't Trump tell everyone early this year, that he had sent Rudy to the Ukraine to gather evidence? why wasn't Rudy vetted through proper channels? because Trump knows there was something wrong with that action. and he doesn't want the Senate to find out more than is already known, like about the folks Rudy was playing ball with.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Chung Tran = Ct = Conspiracy Theorist

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Chung Tran = Ct = Conspiracy Theorist

how? why do you say that?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

no matter your definition of how the House conducted their inquiry, the Senate can make their testimony transparent, impartial, fair, and conclusive. they are in control now. but.. I suspect they will dodge their opportunity. they will abuse that control and refuse to hear from real witnesses. that is my prediction.

You mean like Dem's did in the House, right?

[oeb11]

Exactly - HF - CT seems to have gone to the dark side - The post in Bold is precisely what the DPST House did.

I think the Senate must rise above the partisan circus of the House - take the high road, and have a focused , open, transparent, and non-partisan trial and vote.

DPST's are already screaming (Schumer) about Republican partisanship and demanding recusal of Republican Senators. As if Schumer, and other DPST Senators, have not already decided on the vote - just did the house from 2018 election to present. Will the DPST's recuse DPST senators running for POTUS from the trial and vote - obvious conflict of interest - But - Of course they will not.

Damn Hypocrisy - they have no shame whatsoever.

[HedonistForever]

Shumer and McConnell will now sit down and try to decide who gets called to testify.



Shumer, we would like to call Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffy



McConnell, fuck you!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Shumer and McConnell will now sit down and try to decide who gets called to testify.



Shumer, we would like to call Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffy



McConnell, fuck you!

exactly. did the Democrats actually think that after the kangaroo clown show they ran, denied every request from Republicans, that the Republicans would just let them stick their noses into their trial? really? bhahahahhaaaaa

the Democrats will of course cry foul and they already are trying to make "demands" on the Senate. McConnell isn't going to cave in one bit, it's going to go his way and that's it. the Democrats paraded a hand picked list of "in my opinion" losers without once offering any actual facts, no actual crimes of any kind and claimed they had made a "powerful" case. which is why the ratings of this farce tanked after a few days. so powerful it turned off even most Democrats. bahhahahaaa

all you had were jaxoff and ecky9.5k chanting "fat lying bastard!" all day. SAD!

McConnell will call the kangaroos Schiff, Atkinson and Eric Ciaramella and make them admit their scheme under oath.


BAHAHHAHAAAAAA

[oeb11]

Agreed TWK - except i do not think McConnell will open the political can of worms to call Schiff,, Nadler, etc.

Better to have a focused trial without sideshows.

better to take the high road and let elections deal with them.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I will eat crow if I'm wrong.. I think the political structure is so damaged, a true impartial hearing may be impossible.. early rhetoric suggests I'm probably right.

it's kind of funny how we are discussing this, with 100% certainty Trump will be impeached this week.

I will say the bullshit backlash against the Senate Committee "working with" the White House is ridiculous.. it's about coordination, how the fuck are they supposed to conduct things without some input?

I haven't been here all that long but if eating crow will kill a person, you should be long dead by now.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Agreed TWK - except i do not think McConnell will open the political can of worms to call Schiff,, Nadler, etc.

Better to have a focused trial without sideshows.

better to take the high road and let elections deal with them.

This will be interesting. I'm torn on this. One day I agree with those that say open with a vote just like they do in the jury room before any deliberation. The jury foreman says let's take a vote and see if it will be a waste of time to deliberate.



The next day I want both Bidens, Schiff ( more than anybody ) the WB, Comey, Brennan, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Bruce and Nellie Ohr everybody that signed their name to a FISA warrant, I want the trial long enough to keep Sanders and Warren off the campaign trail.


Next day I'm back to shut it down without hearing from a sole.