• 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!

Would you support

SoCal said:
Wow, it looks like I'm alone in opposing this. I think it's a total giveaway allowing the Repubs a world stage to spread their conspiracy theories.

The world has heard from the 'impartial' Repub Senate majority leader Mitch, that the Senate will be working in, "total coordination" with the oligarchy running our government. Add the Repubs refusal to allow the prosecutor their witnesses and documents and everyone will know that by any other name, it's a kangaroo court.

Allowing witnesses who aren't relevant to the trial only muddies the water, gives credence to their conspiracies, makes the trial seem more legitimate and is just another example of the Democrats bending over backwards while Repubs run roughshod over them.

I guess I'm looking at this more long term. History will document the Repubs sham trial for all the world to see, for what it is, for all time. If the Democrats stand firm, it will make the Repubs malfeasance all that more stark...
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think most americans are smart enough if the republicans call the bidens it's only to muddy the waters and has absolutely nothing to do with trump and ukraine. Let them call them and see how foolish they look trying to connect the bidens to corruption.

I don't think the leadership of the gop has thought this out for the long term. Their whole objective is to get this thing to the senate so they can dismiss it. I still say americans will not accept a 'trial' without witness and documents.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
None of which is relevant to twump's criminal actions that he's admitted to publicly.
Click to expand...

I missed that, please enlighten me. Which article of impeachment cites a criminal action?
It is totally relevant because it goes to Trumps intent. Trump haters like you will say his intent was to benefit his 2020 election. Trump supporters will say his intent was to look into corruption and the 2016 election. You remember the 2016 election with the allegations of corruption. Not interested in that anymore?
I see you are not interested in National Security, all the democrats in Congress seem to be, but only when it relates to Trump, right.
 
Outlook said:
I missed that, please enlighten me. Which article of impeachment cites a criminal action?
Click to expand...

You must be confused. I never said the articles mentioned any.
It is totally relevant because it goes to Trumps intent. Trump haters like you will say his intent was to benefit his 2020 election. Trump supporters will say his intent was to look into corruption and the 2016 election. You remember the 2016 election with the allegations of corruption. Not interested in that anymore?
Click to expand...

He's already admitted to illegal acts. There's nothing you can do about that no matter how hard you cry, and there is no credible basis for the claim the was 'looking into corruption', nor can you cite any.
I see you are not interested in National Security, all the democrats in Congress seem to be, but only when it relates to Trump, right.
Click to expand...

Why do you promote and support a Marxist USA?
 
bongsaway said:
Mitch is warning that both sides might call witnesses. I'm wondering who is this warning meant for?
Anyway.
Do you support both sides calling witnesses?
I'm for it, even the whistleblower providing his or her identity is kept secret. Other than that, go for it, call whom you please. Want the bidens? Ok. Anybody else the republicans want to call? I'm for it as long as the dems get to call whom they wish. A one for one exchange of testimony.
To me this is the best the republicans can hope for. Trying to push 'the trial' through with no witnesses doesn't sit well with the MAJORITY of americans and in my opinion if the republicans decide to take that route, they will pay severely come election time.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

For the Electorate, the down side of witnesses is...what exactly?

The whole things takes a few days longer?

or what?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You must be confused. I never said the articles mentioned any.

He's already admitted to illegal acts. There's nothing you can do about that no matter how hard you cry, and there is no credible basis for the claim the was 'looking into corruption', nor can you cite any.

Why do you promote and support a Marxist USA?
Click to expand...

LOL
Well it's an open and shut case since he already admitted to illegal acts.
When is the date they plan to swear in Pence? Or has he already admitted to illegal acts as well?
Can we go right to Nancy in that case?

Obviously you are clueless as to what Marxism is.
 
veritas1 said:
NO witnesses should be called. That was what the House investigation was for.
Click to expand...
Yeah!
Who tf ever heard of witnesses at trials?
That'd be downright un-American.
Witnesses are for investigations only just as God intended.
 
Outlook said:
LOL
Well it's an open and shut case since he already admitted to illegal acts.
When is the date they plan to swear in Pence? Or has he already admitted to illegal acts as well?
Can we go right to Nancy in that case?
Click to expand...

LOL! Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Pence is neck-deep in these scandals and will never see a second as POTUS.
Obviously you are clueless as to what Marxism is.
Click to expand...

Ha! That's exactly what a Marxist would say, comrade.
 
bongsaway said:
I disagree. I think most americans are smart enough if the republicans call the bidens it's only to muddy the waters and has absolutely nothing to do with trump and ukraine. Let them call them and see how foolish they look trying to connect the bidens to corruption.

I don't think the leadership of the gop has thought this out for the long term. Their whole objective is to get this thing to the senate so they can dismiss it. I still say americans will not accept a 'trial' without witness and documents.
Click to expand...

How soon do dumbocrats forget. McConnell has adopted the rules for the Senate right out of the Dumbocrats rules that was voted on with 100 votes for the Clinton impeachment that DEMANDED no witnesses.

But moving past that, How could you even consider the Bidens testimony as having nothing to do with Trumps request to investigate? That is nothing more than a coverup. If the Bidens were defrauding the Ukrainian government for money, and the China government for money, then Trumps request for an investigation is warranted.

I can't wait to hear how Hunter Biden received 600K per year from a company he had no experience with, when board members for Exxon that have 25 years plus only get 325K.

Please PLEASE call witnesses.
 
bongsaway said:
Mitch is warning that both sides might call witnesses. I'm wondering who is this warning meant for?

Anyway.

Do you support both sides calling witnesses?

I'm for it, even the whistleblower providing his or her identity is kept secret. Other than that, go for it, call whom you please. Want the bidens? Ok. Anybody else the republicans want to call? I'm for it as long as the dems get to call whom they wish. A one for one exchange of testimony.

To me this is the best the republicans can hope for. Trying to push 'the trial' through with no witnesses doesn't sit well with the MAJORITY of americans and in my opinion if the republicans decide to take that route, they will pay severely come election time.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I support your laying out your ridiculous/partisan thread premise in the title rather than click-baiting.

Your idea is laughable.

Trump til 2025.

:shrug:
 
Condor060 said:
How soon do dumbocrats forget. McConnell has adopted the rules for the Senate right out of the Dumbocrats rules that was voted on with 100 votes for the Clinton impeachment that DEMANDED no witnesses.

But moving past that, How could you even consider the Bidens testimony as having nothing to do with Trumps request to investigate? That is nothing more than a coverup. If the Bidens were defrauding the Ukrainian government for money, and the China government for money, then Trumps request for an investigation is warranted.

I can't wait to hear how Hunter Biden received 600K per year from a company he had no experience with, when board members for Exxon that have 25 years plus only get 325K.

Please PLEASE call witnesses.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to ya' but not only were there witnesses at the clinton impeachment there were also documents, thousands of them. I hope the republicans call the bidens too.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I support your laying out your ridiculous/partisan thread premise in the title rather than click-baiting.

Your idea is laughable.

Trump til 2025.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

So, is that a yes or no?
 
SoCal said:
Wow, it looks like I'm alone in opposing this. I think it's a total giveaway allowing the Repubs a world stage to spread their conspiracy theories.

The world has heard from the 'impartial' Repub Senate majority leader Mitch, that the Senate will be working in, "total coordination" with the oligarchy running our government. Add the Repubs refusal to allow the prosecutor their witnesses and documents and everyone will know that by any other name, it's a kangaroo court.

Allowing witnesses who aren't relevant to the trial only muddies the water, gives credence to their conspiracies, makes the trial seem more legitimate and is just another example of the Democrats bending over backwards while Repubs run roughshod over them.

I guess I'm looking at this more long term. History will document the Repubs sham trial for all the world to see, for what it is, for all time. If the Democrats stand firm, it will make the Repubs malfeasance all that more stark...
Click to expand...

I'll trade hunter biden for bolton. I'll trade the whistleblower for donald john trump.
 
swing_voter said:
It was a joke.

The whole impeachment is a joke. Dems knew it would fail from day 1. Why waste all that time and money when they should be governing the country?
Click to expand...

Because there’s no other way to hold Trump accountable and Trump keeps escalating his criminality.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I support your laying out your ridiculous/partisan thread premise in the title rather than click-baiting.

Your idea is laughable.

Trump til 2025.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

The notion that you support candidates other than Trump is a facade anyways.
 
bongsaway said:
Mitch is warning that both sides might call witnesses. I'm wondering who is this warning meant for?

Anyway.

Do you support both sides calling witnesses?

I'm for it, even the whistleblower providing his or her identity is kept secret. Other than that, go for it, call whom you please. Want the bidens? Ok. Anybody else the republicans want to call? I'm for it as long as the dems get to call whom they wish. A one for one exchange of testimony.

To me this is the best the republicans can hope for. Trying to push 'the trial' through with no witnesses doesn't sit well with the MAJORITY of americans and in my opinion if the republicans decide to take that route, they will pay severely come election time.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Agree....
 
bongsaway said:
Hate to break it to ya' but not only were there witnesses at the clinton impeachment there were also documents, thousands of them. I hope the republicans call the bidens too.
Click to expand...

There were huh. Name them
 
bongsaway said:
Look it up.
Click to expand...

I don't have too. I was a voter and I know how the trial went. There were NO witnesses called for testimony in Clinton's impeachment. NONE.

Thats how I know you don't know.

You made the claim that witnesses testified in Clintons impeachment, so you look it up. You made the claim, now prove it.
 
bongsaway said:
Hate to break it to ya' but not only were there witnesses at the clinton impeachment there were also documents, thousands of them. I hope the republicans call the bidens too.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to break it to me. Where is this list of witnesses you claimed testified in the Clinton Impeachment.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Pence is neck-deep in these scandals and will never see a second as POTUS.

Ha! That's exactly what a Marxist would say, comrade.
Click to expand...

Right
 
Condor060 said:
I don't have too. I was a voter and I know how the trial went. There were NO witnesses called for testimony in Clinton's impeachment. NONE.

Thats how I know you don't know.

You made the claim that witnesses testified in Clintons impeachment, so you look it up. You made the claim, now prove it.
Click to expand...

What’s more, the two times in history that a presidential impeachment has reached the Senate, the chamber has treated it as a trial. The Senate proceedings in Andrew Johnson’s case included the testimony of 25 witnesses for the prosecution and 16 for the defense. During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Senate deposed three witnesses—even after the extended independent counsel investigation that preceded the Senate trial. In fact, the Senate has obtained testimony from witnesses in every impeachment trial held in the past 50 years.

Happy? Now what were you saying about democrats not following precedent?
 
bongsaway said:
What’s more, the two times in history that a presidential impeachment has reached the Senate, the chamber has treated it as a trial. The Senate proceedings in Andrew Johnson’s case included the testimony of 25 witnesses for the prosecution and 16 for the defense. During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Senate deposed three witnesses—even after the extended independent counsel investigation that preceded the Senate trial. In fact, the Senate has obtained testimony from witnesses in every impeachment trial held in the past 50 years.

Happy? Now what were you saying about democrats not following precedent?
Click to expand...

Both sides will always depose witnesses. That isn't testimony. Those are closed door examinations. They can bring in sworn affidavits but without cross examination its usually worthless. You can't convict anyone on an affidavit. The witness has to give testimony to have any value unless you have actual evidence that is supported by an affidavit.

No witnesses in Clintons impeachment took the stand
No witnesses in Clintons impeachment was cross examined
No witnesses in Clintons impeachment provided testimony to the Senate.
No witnesses were called to provide testimony.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yeah!
Who tf ever heard of witnesses at trials?
That'd be downright un-American.
Witnesses are for investigations only just as God intended.
Click to expand...

This is the deliberation phase. They are to deliberate based on whatever it is the House uncovered. Un-American was not letting the GOP call witnesses in the House.
 
bongsaway said:
Mitch is warning that both sides might call witnesses. I'm wondering who is this warning meant for?

Anyway.

Do you support both sides calling witnesses?

I'm for it, even the whistleblower providing his or her identity is kept secret. Other than that, go for it, call whom you please. Want the bidens? Ok. Anybody else the republicans want to call? I'm for it as long as the dems get to call whom they wish. A one for one exchange of testimony.

To me this is the best the republicans can hope for. Trying to push 'the trial' through with no witnesses doesn't sit well with the MAJORITY of americans and in my opinion if the republicans decide to take that route, they will pay severely come election time.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I can understand no witnesses. My understanding of that doesn't make it right or wrong. The way it was explained to me is that once witnesses begin to testify, that will lead to other witnesses being called on to testify about the character, type of evidence they provided, hearsay or direct, inferred and or factual and so on and so on. What was expected to last weeks with witnesses could be a long drawn out affair taking months.

Now whether that explanation holds water or not, I suppose that is for each of us to decide. I can see it now, once one side calls a witness, the other side calls ten to make the first witness look like mud or worst, then the side who called the witness runs through ten more to present the upstanding and outstanding character of the witness and on and on.

Perhaps the question of witnesses will be answered as to how long each side wants this thing to last. Maybe having this thing run through March, April or later while most Americans become totally bored with the whole thing except the hyper partisans.

There should be a way to reach a happy medium on witnesses. But with Schumer and McConnell being as ultra partisans only looking out for the good of each's party, reaching a happy medium which is good for all America isn't about to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom