• 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!

Your opinion

Michael Cole said:
It has a guy in a robe, a bunch of statues, curtains. It's a Broadway play!

Legal proceedings are codified. This is impeachment. Not codified. Straight from the Constitution. Held not by prosecutors, defense lawyers and a jury of peers, but by politically motivated elected officials.

See the difference?
Click to expand...
Traditionally, legal proceedings were not codified, rather Principles and Precedent ruled. Some of it is codified, eg rules of evidence. It is held by a Judge, prosecutors, defense lawyers. Only the jury is different, and not that much different. It may be court TV, but it is a real trial.
 
Jay59 said:
Traditionally, legal proceedings were not codified, rather Principles and Precedent ruled. Some of it is codified, eg rules of evidence. It is held by a Judge, prosecutors, defense lawyers. Only the jury is different, and not that much different. It may be court TV, but it is a real trial.
Click to expand...

It's being called into the boss' office to decide if you'll be fired. No one is going to prison.

Losing one's job is not like going to prison, and it doesn't require the same stuff.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's funny how the left can have a sham impeachment but then demand a fair Senate trial, which shouldn't even be happening due to the sham impeachment. However, since that's the way it came down, I'm perfectly fine with dittoing the Clinton impeachment where partisan Democratic Senators voted not to remove Clinton from office. The shoe is on the other foot now.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't providing lots of witnesses and documents serve to expose the "sham impeachment."
 
HumblePi said:
No but hey, did you see how the courts said that Don McGahn must testify? Did you see how the courts shut down the Trump Foundation and made them pay 2 million dollars in retribution to charity? Did you see how two courts say that Trump must turn over his tax returns for the past five years? Did you read where a federal judge struck down the Donald Trump administration’s plan to require some people to work for their Medicaid benefits? Did you see that another judge halted Trump’s plan to open Arctic waters to drilling?

Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, but oh! They must be Obama appointees, right?
Click to expand...

It's a pattern where liberal courts rule against Trump, only to be overturned later on.
 
bongsaway said:
Will witnesses be called in the senate trial of president trump?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say. On one hand, I think Republicans want the imprimatur of respectability knowing that history will forever remember a decision to not call witnesses as a sham trial otherwise. On the other hand, I'm not really sure Republicans are really losing all that much sleep over their legacy, and are instead more concerned with what their base wants. And what their base wants is for them to give Democrats the middle finger.
 
ecofarm said:
It's being called into the boss' office to decide if you'll be fired. No one is going to prison. Losing one's job is not like going to prison, and it doesn't require the same stuff.
Click to expand...
Far from it.

Regardless, there should be a reason. Job performance has been outstanding. No scandals that did not turn out to be outright fabrications. There is literally no justification.

Casper said:
Not the ones that can implicate trump.
Click to expand...
As if there were any. There are none.
 
They have to create a situation whereby the moderates can diverge and separate themselves from Mitch and Donald so they can join the fold the rest of the time. I think votes on a minimal couple of witnesses may be that situation. Its all theater designed to provide shelter for re-election campaigning.
 
Jay59 said:
Far from it.

Regardless, there should be a reason. Job performance has been outstanding. No scandals that did not turn out to be outright fabrications. There is literally no justification.


As if there were any. There are none.
Click to expand...

Let's not drama queen this. Losing a job is not going to prison. Your boss can fire you without a court conviction.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's not drama queen this. Losing a job is not going to prison. Your boss can fire you without a court conviction.
Click to expand...
I was a Union Steward for 15+ years. I know that a boss cannot discipline, much less terminate, without a good reason and proof.
 
Jay59 said:
I was a Union Steward for 15+ years. I know that a boss cannot discipline, much less terminate, without a good reason and proof.
Click to expand...

So you're a commie?
 
Jay59 said:
Traditionally, legal proceedings were not codified, rather Principles and Precedent ruled. Some of it is codified, eg rules of evidence. It is held by a Judge, prosecutors, defense lawyers. Only the jury is different, and not that much different. It may be court TV, but it is a real trial.
Click to expand...

Okie-dokie
 
socialist Bernie sanders told Elizabeth warren, that there is no way, a woman, will ever be president. this a put down of women all over the country. Joe Biden believes women would be as good a president as any man. as a matter of fact. reports are a president Biden, will infact pick a woman as his vice president running mate. women and African american community of the country, have been put down for the past 3 years. american women African Americans and Latino, will put a president Biden, and his female running mate,into the white house, if by the grace of god, he is allowed, by Americans, to serve all Americans, not just some Americans, as the most corrupted president,in american history, does every day.
 
Paradoxical said:
Nunes letter to ICIG demands answers about whistleblower complaint | Fox News

I am putting that link up for those here who only listen to mainstream news because you are unaware of this.



In short, what happened is that the IG colluded with both the whistle blower and Schiff. Read it for yourself. This was a setup from the very beginning.


So, i would like witnesses. The fist being the IG, the second being Schiff, the third being his staff, and the last being Vidman and the Dems can get Bolton. However, Trump is adamant about protecting future presidents from future abuse of congress.
Click to expand...

Wow, we should believe nunez? Is this the same nunez, oh never mind, it is.

I give the right credit for their ability to believe alternative facts. Everyone is in the deep state and they are all cooperating with each other to bring down president trump. Yet you want me to believe nunez and fox, good one.
 
Condor060 said:
Democrats voted for articles knowing they only had hearsay witnesses

Pelosi tried to renegotiate the rules of evidence and testimony to allow here hearsay witnesses

McConnell told her no. We are not changing the federal rules of evidence to accommodate your articles

If Pelosi sends those articles to the Senate, they will not have any testimony to support them.

If the prosecution doesn't have a single witness to testify, there won't be any testimony from the defendant side.

Thats why McConnell told Pelosi he wasn't calling any witnesses. There isn't any witness testimony to rebut against.

Additionally, the Senate Trial doesn't do investigations. Their job is to hear the evidence of the accuser. If evidence and testimony is provided, then the accused will provide witnesses and evidence in defense.

If no witnesses are provided by the accuser, the articles are voted on without evidence or testimony to support them.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes or no?
 
Cardinal said:
It's hard to say. On one hand, I think Republicans want the imprimatur of respectability knowing that history will forever remember a decision to not call witnesses as a sham trial otherwise. On the other hand, I'm not really sure Republicans are really losing all that much sleep over their legacy, and are instead more concerned with what their base wants. And what their base wants is for them to give Democrats the middle finger.
Click to expand...

Barr flat out told us he wasn't concerned about his legacy and sondland told us he has no reputation to defend. As you said, the cult of trump at this point isn't concerned with legacy, reputation or anything else other than beating the libs.

The right is willing to throw away our over two hundred year history for this short term person who should have never ever have been elected. Even once he was, he proved and is proving he should have never been elected. Selling everything the GOP once stood for in order to support an insane con man. A rich east coast elitist who has hoodwinked the base into believing he is one of them fighting for them. Sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom