• 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.............

Luckyone said:
Once again, you are wrong. Hillary was bad but at least she had humanity (helped women and children throughout her political career) and I can tell you that if nothing else, she would have worked within the Constitution and not done anything against it. Corrupt, yes she was but within the level where most politicians are. Trump is at the height of corruption.

He has worked with, depended on, and aided our stated enemy Russia. I can guarantee you that Hillary would never have done that. If nothing else, she and Bill were greedy but patriots. Trump is a rat that will go to sleep with anyone that can help him. Trump would sell his mother if it got him one step higher.
Click to expand...

Yes, she knew how to look good for the cameras. But when they aren't rolling, just how different do you think they are?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Finny how the left ignores the partisan politics of the democrats during the house hearings, but cries partisan with the senate.

I've said it before, I will say it again.

They are the party of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's unreal watching the liar Schiff talk about "values" and the like. I wonder what values impel a party to decide on impeachment before the POTUS has even taken the oath of office. Schiff, BTW, has been caught in another lie when he said that Parnas referring to "Mr. Z" meant Zelensky when it was the president of Burisma he was talking about.
 
veritas1 said:
It's unreal watching the liar Schiff talk about "values" and the like. I wonder what values impel a party to decide on impeachment before the POTUS has even taken the oath of office. Schiff, BTW, has been caught in another lie when he said that Parnas referring to "Mr. Z" meant Zelensky when it was the president of Burisma he was talking about.
Click to expand...

It's all a show, have to play to the audience.
 
Luckyone said:
.....and Trump is different?
Click to expand...

He didn't live in the media spotlight like Hillary did. He doesn't care how he looks.

Just because Hillary puts on a good media face, don't be fooled thinking she's a better person.
 
Lord of Planar said:
He didn't live in the media spotlight like Hillary did. He doesn't care how he looks.

Just because Hillary puts on a good media face, don't be fooled thinking she's a better person.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha! Your statement has truly brought a laugh because it is so "unbelievably" misguided.

Trump doesn't live in the media like Hillary did?

Let me laugh again..................hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!...........sorry, I couldn't stop laughing.

You actually believe that Trump doesn't live in the media? He feeds off of it, he relishes it, he seeks it and he loves it as it is what makes him feel important.

let me laugh again...........hahahahahahahahaha!
 
vegas giants said:
Do you want to hear all the evidence?
Click to expand...

The evidence that the House prepared for the impeachment process, yes, and we are.

If there was more evidence and witnesses, why didn't House include them in their case, as is their obligation?
Why do Democrats expect the Senate, who is only to hear the case the House prepares, supposed go and do the House's job for them?

Why do Democrats (and the media but of course I repeat myself) claim on one hand that the House's case is strong, and yet are begging for more witnesses and documentation from the administration?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways, and so these claims for a strong case come off as just so much hot air, bluster, and wishful thinking.

Frankly, even if more so called 'evidence' were presented, I rather doubt that it would add up to much more than what the House prepared, which is zip. zilch, nada. Do you really think that they'd leave available and accessible evidence behind?

Odd to note that bribery and extortion, actual criminal charges, weren't included in the House case. It is probably because there was no evidence for it, otherwise they would have included them, don't you think? yet they have not.

Biden has come out and flatly stated that he would not testify before the Senate if called as a witness. Isn't this even more so Obstruction of Congress than Trump asserting Executive Privilege? Why aren't the Democrats charging Biden then? Or are these so called 'rules' only to apply to non-Democrat politicians?

The Democrat's hypocrisy, partisanship and destructive acts in this process, and seemingly everything else they touch, simply reeks to the high heavens. They deserve no quarter, and have not earned such consideration.
 
Lutherf said:
Well let's see...everything that went down in the House was purely partisan so what's good for the goose and all.
Click to expand...

This is how I view all things political nowadays.

Whatever can be done to harm the other side, no matter what the cost is.
 
Hamish Howl said:
This is how I view all things political nowadays.

Whatever can be done to harm the other side, no matter what the cost is.
Click to expand...

That's healthy.
 
eohrnberger said:
The evidence that the House prepared for the impeachment process, yes, and we are.

If there was more evidence and witnesses, why didn't House include them in their case, as is their obligation?
Why do Democrats expect the Senate, who is only to hear the case the House prepares, supposed go and do the House's job for them?

Why do Democrats (and the media but of course I repeat myself) claim on one hand that the House's case is strong, and yet are begging for more witnesses and documentation from the administration?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways, and so these claims for a strong case come off as just so much hot air, bluster, and wishful thinking.

Frankly, even if more so called 'evidence' were presented, I rather doubt that it would add up to much more than what the House prepared, which is zip. zilch, nada. Do you really think that they'd leave available and accessible evidence behind?

Odd to note that bribery and extortion, actual criminal charges, weren't included in the House case. It is probably because there was no evidence for it, otherwise they would have included them, don't you think? yet they have not.

Biden has come out and flatly stated that he would not testify before the Senate if called as a witness. Isn't this even more so Obstruction of Congress than Trump asserting Executive Privilege? Why aren't the Democrats charging Biden then? Or are these so called 'rules' only to apply to non-Democrat politicians?

The Democrat's hypocrisy, partisanship and destructive acts in this process, and seemingly everything else they touch, simply reeks to the high heavens. They deserve no quarter, and have not earned such consideration.
Click to expand...

So you only want to hear some of the evidence not all the evidence. New evidence has become available that the house did not have. Bolton wants to testify.


But you don't want to hear him.


You dont want all the evidence heard....just some.

America deserves better
 
TurtleDude said:
The TDS crowd hates Trump and loves a politically driven impeachment, but then meltdowns when politics throws a monkey wrench in their attempts to lynch the president.
Click to expand...

The utter lack of self-awareness that the OP demonstrated is just astounding, not realizing he just described himself/the opposition's impeachment process in the House to a T.
 
vegas giants said:
So you only want to hear some of the evidence not all the evidence. New evidence has become available that the house did not have. Bolton wants to testify.


But you don't want to hear him.


You dont want all the evidence heard....just some.

America deserves better
Click to expand...

Miss-characterization. The Constitution clearly states that the House prepares the case, the Senate hears it.

You don't like the Constitution, I get that, but them's the rules. :shrug:

Why not cast your scorn on the House Democrats which didn't bother to prepare their case fully? To fully include all the 'news' 'evidence' and 'witnesses'?
This is rightfully where your scorn should go.
 
eohrnberger said:
Miss-characterization. The Constitution clearly states that the House prepares the case, the Senate hears it.

You don't like the Constitution, I get that, but them's the rules. :shrug:

Why not cast your scorn on the House Democrats which didn't bother to prepare their case fully? To fully include all the 'news' 'evidence' and 'witnesses'?
This is rightfully where your scorn should go.
Click to expand...

So you dont wantbto hear the new evidence? You only want yo hear part of the evidence. Ok


But we must wonder why you are so terrified to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney?


Is what they have to say terrifying?
 
eohrnberger said:
Miss-characterization. The Constitution clearly states that the House prepares the case, the Senate hears it.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't. The house is the indictment, the senate is the trial. That's it.

And now you are telling us that only evidence brought before the grand jury for an indictment can be used at a trial?

You sure about that?
 
vegas giants said:
So you dont wantbto hear the new evidence? You only want yo hear part of the evidence. Ok


But we must wonder why you are so terrified to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney?


Is what they have to say terrifying?
Click to expand...

Yeah, keep pushing your preferred narrative and not response to what I posted. Looks really good on you. :lamo
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, keep pushing your preferred narrative and not response to what I posted. Looks really good on you. :lamo
Click to expand...

Just admit that you do not want to hear all the evidence.


Just say it.


Tell us why
 
Hamish Howl said:
Except that it doesn't. The house is the indictment, the senate is the trial. That's it.

And now you are telling us that only evidence brought before the grand jury for an indictment can be used at a trial?

You sure about that?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out a great many times, it's not a criminal trial, it's a political one, and in this case that's a certainty, given the Democrats have been pushing impeachment since about 10 nano-seconds after the election was called back in 2016.

If the Democrat's House wanted to bring that evidence and those witnesses, why didn't they bother to do exactly that?

The Democrats are clearly not accepting the results of the 2016 election.
How is this NOT degrading the institution of elections in the US?
How is this NOT equally applicable to the accusations from the Democrats that Trump would do exactly that?
 
eohrnberger said:
As has been pointed out a great many times, it's not a criminal trial, it's a political one, and in this case that's a certainty, given the Democrats have been pushing impeachment since about 10 nano-seconds after the election was called back in 2016.

If the Democrat's House wanted to bring that evidence and those witnesses, why didn't they bother to do exactly that?

The Democrats are clearly not accepting the results of the 2016 election.
How is this NOT degrading the institution of elections in the US?
How is this NOT equally applicable to the accusations from the Democrats that Trump would do exactly that?
Click to expand...

So you're on his side so he is incurably innocent. Got it.
 
Hamish Howl said:
So you're on his side so he is incurably innocent. Got it.
Click to expand...

How nice of you to assign a position to me that I've not taken.
I need to thank you sometime for that. Or maybe not. Yeah, probably not.

On the point of 'incurably innocent', no.
Presumed innocence, isn't that what the law and legal standards prescribe?
Or are you part of the misguided 'must prove his innocence' crowd?
 
eohrnberger said:
Already have, Per previous posts. Not the answer you want? Too bad.
Click to expand...

Too bad for America.


I want to hear all the evidence.


I am not terrified of what Bolton or Mulvaney will say
 
vegas giants said:
Too bad for America.


I want to hear all the evidence.


I am not terrified of what Bolton or Mulvaney will say
Click to expand...

I think you need to go back and tell your Democrat House representatives that they need to do their job more fully and properly then.

But I suspect that this isn't going to be the last impeachment proceeding against Trump, should the House remain in Democrat control.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think you need to go back and tell your Democrat House representatives that they need to do their job more fully and properly then.

But I suspect that this isn't going to be the last impeachment proceeding against Trump, should the House remain in Democrat control.
Click to expand...

This isnt about sides. It's a search for the truth. I want to hear the truth.


You do not.


You want the truth hidden from America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom