• 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!

No Evidence.............

vegas giants said:
Now bolton says he will speak without a court order.


Should we hear his evidence now?
Click to expand...

You guys either had enough evidence to impeach or you didn't. You impeached based on the evidence you had and now you seem to be admitting that you impeached first without enough evidence. I can understand though how worried you are about the evidence you used to impeach with. How about a compromise? Nancy accepts back the articles of impeachment and reopens the House investigation to include Bolton testimony and then the House can formally impeach Trump having the evidence they want.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you saying that the House impeached without enough evidence?
Click to expand...

No. Just that new evidence should not be suppressed. That's how it works in the legal system. I thought this was going to be the law and order presidency.
 
Luckyone said:
A vote on whether to allow new evidence into the impeachment trial was voted on today and did not pass on a 53-47 vote. It was 100% a partisan vote because that is exactly the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.

Why are the Republicans being partisan on this? Is evidence a political thing? Is the Constitution against evidence being produced? Is providing evidence against our established laws?

None of the above. Evidence is this case is thought to be damaging to Trump and therefore on a partisan basis they voted against it.

Where are we now? Have we decided to throw out our justice system that has been the backbone of our country for 240 years? Have we now decided that truth is no longer important? Are we now more interested in our perceived benefits that in defending our Constitution and our laws?

What happens in the future when some other president that the Republicans are against is then impeached for actions against the Constitution and he gets away with whatever he has done because he refused subpoenas and hid evidence simply because he was able to do so and the party in charge supported him? Is that what you want? Is that what you would support even if it against your political views?

I cannot understand anyone voting against evidence being provided. All Trump supporters have used the law when it has been in their favor, such as the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" being used every single day against the accusations being leveled against Trump. Now you are in favor of no evidence that proves innocence or guilt being introduced?

If that is the case, you are then proving the point that our nation (not just our political representatives) has become corrupt. Corruption from the bottom to the top and not just at the top.

If you believe in our Constitution and believe in our laws that state that guilt has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", you need to support the introduction of all evidence that is available! It is the only way that guilt or innocence can be proven! Simple as that!
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL... seems you missed the circus in the House.

That’s where they are supposed to “investigate”.

They did. Now they present their case... but it seems we have a bunch of House Managers with their dicks in their hands... signifying they have nothing.

Their doing... nobody forced them to be idiots... they did it all on their own. An unforced error.

Oopsi !!!

95BBF427-4612-46FF-98C5-4F57E09022CE.jpg
 
Luckyone said:
The problem with your opinion is that it has been proven that Trump was not interested in the investigation results but just in the announcement of an investigation. That proves he did not care if Biden was guilty of corruption but just that he was being investigated for it.

By the way, since when do we (as a nation) have other nations do investigations into our own people. Since I can remember, every investigation about corruption in our own nation has been done by us personally. We cannot ever depend on what other nations say, given that they are have their own reasons for coming up with different outcomes based on what is to their benefit and we can never prove whether their results are real or made up. As such, it further proves that Trump was using Ukraine for his personal benefit and not for uncovering corruption of Biden.

Sorry, but you lost this debate.
Click to expand...

FALSE! Nothing has been proven at all. How dense are lefties? Do you grasp that someones opinion and heresay don't make it fact? We are looking for factual evidence. So far there is literally none. If you have facts please post them. Every single one of the dems witnesses stated they did not have any factual evidence. All of them. This is not open to debate. It is known fact.
 
Moderate Right said:
You guys either had enough evidence to impeach or you didn't. You impeached based on the evidence you had and now you seem to be admitting that you impeached first without enough evidence. I can understand though how worried you are about the evidence you used to impeach with. How about a compromise? Nancy accepts back the articles of impeachment and reopens the House investigation to include Bolton testimony and then the House can formally impeach Trump having the evidence they want.
Click to expand...

Should we hear all the evidence?
 
apdst said:
This isn't a court. That's what y'all been saying.
Click to expand...


That's how it works in actual court. You can call this what you want. Why would there be an exception for new evidence not being allowed after an indictment has already been made? What would the justification be?
 
vegas giants said:
Yes!!!!!! And it is right in front of us willing to testify.



Why not hear it?
Click to expand...

Then the impeachment should not have happened. You don't impeach first and then gather the evidence later. The House should have had their case lined up first before impeaching.
 
Moderate Right said:
This may be North Korea. The House impeaches a president without enough actual evidence to impeach.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted and dismissed.


They have evidence.


New evidence has become available.



Should we hear the new evidence



Now




Start running
 
ataraxia said:
That's how it works in actual court. You can call this what you want. Why would there be an exception for new evidence not being allowed after an indictment has already been made? What would the justification be?
Click to expand...

This isn't an actual court. Remember y'all saying that all along?
 
Moderate Right said:
Then the impeachment should not have happened. You don't impeach first and then gather the evidence later. The House should have had their case lined up first before impeaching.
Click to expand...

Yes you do. New evidence has become available.



Shoukd we hear the new evidence?
 
Moderate Right said:
Then the impeachment should not have happened. You don't impeach first and then gather the evidence later. The House should have had their case lined up first before impeaching.
Click to expand...

Why not? There was enough evidence to impeach. Now there is even more.

The only reason to suppress further evidence now is because you know it's bad for you. If you suppress, most Americans are smart enough to realize that. It's not going to look good for you.
 
ataraxia said:
Why was it rigged?

Forget all the witnesses. The released transcript was more than enough.
Click to expand...

the transcript is nothing. the President can investigate corruption in another country if he so chooses, at any time, when it is VERY evident that corruption could be present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom