• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Republicans aren't asking questions about the allegations against Trump?

S

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
11,200
Reaction score
8,261
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
 
Of course they know. They just don't care.
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

They don't want the question answered, they just want to distract.
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

They did address the allegations.

Perhaps Bash was away from the TV when Ratcliffe came on and talked about "bribery"...which happens to be the Dem's crime of the day.
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
 
Mycroft said:
They did address the allegations.

Perhaps Bash was away from the TV when Ratcliffe came on and talked about "bribery"...which happens to be the Dem's crime of the day.
Click to expand...

Bribery is the same thing as quid pro quo.

The exact same.

Do this, I'll give you this. Only if you do it, though.

the republicans are sheer scum.
 
Mycroft said:
They did address the allegations.

Perhaps Bash was away from the TV when Ratcliffe came on and talked about "bribery"...which happens to be the Dem's crime of the day.
Click to expand...

He actually only mentioned that the word bribery was not found in any of the previous transcripts. It is not up to a fact witness to allege a crime. That is up to the investigators and I believe that is what the hearings are all about.

Ratcliffe is just a loud mouth deflector who is getting TV time. His questioning today was worthless.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

Seems you are completely clueless, and have no idea what the unitary executive theory is.

What Trump did is disgusting.

"she's gonna go through some things"

complicit in undermining our national security interests in eastern europe.

Anyone who votes for this man is my enemy.
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

umm no they don't know he is guilty because he isn't. they are poking huge holes in these so called witnesses who haven't witnessed anything.
 
ludin said:
umm no they don't know he is guilty because he isn't. they are poking huge holes in these so called witnesses who haven't witnessed anything.
Click to expand...

Outdated talking point.
This AM's witnesses were both on the call.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

this is 100% accurate and 100% right on the button what they are doing.
you have to remember leftist things accusation = guilty and the accused has to prove themselves innocent.

basically they are 100% ass backwards as always on the rule of law.

this is the basis of witch trials in which the accused have to prove themselves not a witch not that the accusers have to prove they are.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Outdated talking point.
This AM's witnesses were both on the call.
Click to expand...

no they are were not on the phone call. the 2 supposed witnesses heard parts of a phone call.
they didn't hear the whole thing nor do they have the context of the responses.

therefore their testimony is useless.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?
Click to expand...

Yeah, keep thinking... if allegations did not have substance, it would be easy for Republicans to ask questions displaying that very fact. Yet they don't want to approach the subject at all.

Captain Adverse said:
Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?
Click to expand...

Could be. Yet again, Republicans are not asking about it for some reason... Hmmmm...

Captain Adverse said:
Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?
Click to expand...

Except we do NOT know that. If Republicans wanted us to know that, they'd ask about the subject matter itself.

Captain Adverse said:
Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?
Click to expand...

What best way to subvert it as to blow to pieces the subject of these allegations? Ooops again...

Captain Adverse said:
... the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

Keep trying :lamo
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

May I remind you that this is a political process where no actual 'Crime' is needed to impeach. There are plenty of 'Crimes' that have taken place in the last three years and I am sure the articles of impeachment will address those as well.

The more I watch the republican garbage defense of Trump, I would rather beat him at the polls. That way Pence can't pardon him. Maybe Nancy will impeach and just not pass it on to the senate. Trump can just stew in it till November.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

Help me out here: how is it that literally nothing you just wasted the time to type out is actually based in reality?

They were witness to "NOTHING"? I see you utterly failed to watch any of the testimony.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

If only all that exculpatory evidence and testimony wasn't being stonewalled by the whitehouse, huh?

Coulda put the lie to all of this, shut it right down.

Here's my take on hearsay:

Lets all hear what everybody has to say.
 
ludin said:
umm no they don't know he is guilty because he isn't. they are poking huge holes in these so called witnesses who haven't witnessed anything.
Click to expand...

But only if we believe fox and not our lying eyes and ears.

Y'all sound foolish coming here where people get information outside of the conservative media bubble.

Unhinged, even.

Pavlov is delighted.

Occam is appalled.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...let me think... :think:

Could it be that the "allegations" have about as much substance as morning mist, and about as much staying power?

Could it be that the "witnesses" (including, per the "investigators," the whistleblower himself) are in fact witnesses to NOTHING?

Could it be that the questions of "witness credibility" are rational responses when we know they have nothing of substance to testify to?

Could it be that they know it is just a "show" hearing designed to subvert public opinion, so their job is to combat this planned subversion?

Assertions of facts not in evidence, personal opinions, hearsay often thrice removed from the sources, virtue signaling, assumptions, and confirmation bias are all were are getting so far from such "witnesses"...but no factual crime.

I think the Republicans on the committee are doing exactly what they should, pointing out ALL of the above so this partisan effort can be unmasked at least in those media outlets who aren't actively participating in the witch-hunt.
Click to expand...
If the bolded were true, the Republicans would factually debunk the allegations & move on. Obviously, they can't (debunk).
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't want to participate in a coup.
 
Chomsky said:
If the bolded were true, the Republicans would factually debunk the allegations & move on. Obviously, they can't (debunk).
Click to expand...

Well I am still waiting for something to debunk.
 
Obscurity said:
Bribery is the same thing as quid pro quo.

The exact same.

Do this, I'll give you this. Only if you do it, though.

the republicans are sheer scum.
Click to expand...
Actually - bribery is a specific subset of quid-pro-quo, implying illegality or dishonesty.
 
Slavister said:
A good question from CNN's Dana Bash: how come Republicans only ask questions related to process or witness credibility or repeat debunked conspiracy theories? Why don't they ask about the allegations against Trump, you know... the main, fundamental reason the hearings are supposed to address...

Guess they already know he is guilty, huh?
Click to expand...

It's because the allegations are lies. Just like with the Russia hoax and just like the Kavanaugh hoax.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Help me out here: how is it that literally nothing you just wasted the time to type out is actually based in reality?

They were witness to "NOTHING"? I see you utterly failed to watch any of the testimony.
Click to expand...

I missed the part where an eyewitness testified that Trump told the leader of Ukraine that he was withholding the money unless the leader provided evidence made up if necessary that would help him in his campaign in 2020.
 
The AntiDonald said:
May I remind you that this is a political process where no actual 'Crime' is needed to impeach. There are plenty of 'Crimes' that have taken place in the last three years and I am sure the articles of impeachment will address those as well.

The more I watch the republican garbage defense of Trump, I would rather beat him at the polls. That way Pence can't pardon him. Maybe Nancy will impeach and just not pass it on to the senate. Trump can just stew in it till November.
Click to expand...
That's a good point! I have little doubt SDNY is coming after his ass 21 JAN 2021.
 
What if...? said:
If only all that exculpatory evidence and testimony wasn't being stonewalled by the whitehouse, huh?

Coulda put the lie to all of this, shut it right down.

Here's my take on hearsay:

Lets all hear what everybody has to say.
Click to expand...
The bolded is essentially the People's proof that Trump is guilty: If he has the exculpatory evidence, why does he refuse to relinquish it even under subpoena? Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom