• 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!

Witnesses who should be called???

GDViking

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
20,025
Reaction score
12,035
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...

Mulvaney for sure.

Lev Parnas is sitting in the Senate gallery today with his attorney. He's wearing an ankle bracelet. He wants to testify but we know that's not happening. But he has released more documents and video. If nothing else, it will be brought to the attention of the American public.
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...



Call Vlad so he can provide proof of Ukraine involvement in the 2016 election, not Russia.
 
HumblePi said:
Mulvaney for sure.

Lev Parnas is sitting in the Senate gallery today with his attorney. He's wearing an ankle bracelet. He wants to testify but we know that's not happening. But he has released more documents and video. If nothing else, it will be brought to the attention of the American public.
Click to expand...


Yip, I left those off my list...
 
Since we appear to be going with a total **** show of an Impeachment process start to finish, is Oprah available to chat about... whatever?
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...

I want to see Hunter Biden, because the moment Trump's team attempts to make Biden's pressure on Shokin look like it's the same as Trump's pressure on Zelensky, their entire defense will fall apart. Trump was trying to extort Ukraine into damaging Biden in order to help his 2020 campaign and there IS NO equivalent on the other side. Ukrainian interference in US elections is a Russian disinformation talking point direct from their military intelligence services and it was blown to smithereens already, so it will be interesting to see them try Pimping for Putin on the floor of the Senate.

I say bring in Hunter Biden and then let's watch Republican senators try to defend Putin's propaganda.
We might just GET the Dem Trifecta after that.
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...

Pence, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney, Bolton, Guiliani
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...

Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, the whistleblower, members of Schiff's staff.
 
Zelensky, if he could be assured he doesn't have to lie to keep getting aid.
 
None will be called, despite an overwhelming majority of americans wanting witnesses. The results?

Right wingers will go further right, and left wingers further left.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I want to see Hunter Biden, because the moment Trump's team attempts to make Biden's pressure on Shokin look like it's the same as Trump's pressure on Zelensky, their entire defense will fall apart. Trump was trying to extort Ukraine into damaging Biden in order to help his 2020 campaign and there IS NO equivalent on the other side. Ukrainian interference in US elections is a Russian disinformation talking point direct from their military intelligence services and it was blown to smithereens already, so it will be interesting to see them try Pimping for Putin on the floor of the Senate.

I say bring in Hunter Biden and then let's watch Republican senators try to defend Putin's propaganda.
We might just GET the Dem Trifecta after that.
Click to expand...

I think you may be right, they were trying to create a conspiracy where none existed.

Calling their bluff may be a good call.

Currently the trump defense seems to be this will take time, you guys would be forced to do your jobs if this continues...
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...
I want to see the defense be given the opprotunity to call anyone they deem relative to their defense. The house had their turn now the WH should be allowed to give their response.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Obscurity said:
None will be called, despite an overwhelming majority of americans wanting witnesses. The results?

Right wingers will go further right, and left wingers further left.
Click to expand...

And over 60% of americans will vote left...
 
Obscurity said:
None will be called, despite an overwhelming majority of americans wanting witnesses. The results?

Right wingers will go further right, and left wingers further left.
Click to expand...
I thinking your being objectively accurate. My only point of contention is that the democrats are trying to assign fault for not hearing from all the witnesses onto the republican controlled senate. The failure occurred in the democrat controlled house. They voted to move forward with an impeachment without the benefit of having a complete case to present to the senate. The blame belongs on the house not the senate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I thinking your being objectively accurate. My only point of contention is that the democrats are trying to assign fault for not hearing from all the witnesses onto the republican controlled senate. The failure occurred in the democrat controlled house. They voted to move forward with an impeachment without the benefit of having a complete case to present to the senate. The blame belongs on the house not the senate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am non-plussed with this argument. As the house just pointed out, every other impeachment in the senate had witnesses the house did NOT interview.

So I'll ask you to reconsider your position.
 
Obscurity said:
I am non-plussed with this argument. As the house just pointed out, every other impeachment in the senate had witnesses the house did NOT interview.

So I'll ask you to reconsider your position.
Click to expand...

They just pointed out that in the Johnson impeachment 47 out of 50 witnesses were new...
 
Obscurity said:
I am non-plussed with this argument. As the house just pointed out, every other impeachment in the senate had witnesses the house did NOT interview.

So I'll ask you to reconsider your position.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the new vocabulary word. I had to look up the definition of nonplussed. Its a good word.

My argument isnt that the senate cant call more witnesses if they choose to or even that they should not. I firmly believe any witness the defense wants should be heard. The house im unsympathetic to their argument because they had the choice of holding off on impeaching until these witness issues could be legally resolved and the made the choice freely to move forward without them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Thanks for the new vocabulary word. I had to look up the definition of nonplussed. Its a good word.

My argument isnt that the senate cant call more witnesses if they choose to or even that they should not. I firmly believe any witness the defense wants should be heard. The house im unsympathetic to their argument because they had the choice of holding off on impeaching until these witness issues could be legally resolved and the made the choice freely to move forward without them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am nonplussed at myself for adding a hyphen. I know better. Then again I've had the plague (a cold from hell, not coronavirus) for two weeks and am all hopped up on cold meds.

I get your perspective; frankly, I think at this stage, the republicans are doing everyone a disservice in withholding any witnesses. They have all the power. Why not call some people to exculpate the president?

It makes no sense, unless you consider different motives ;)
 
GDViking said:
They just pointed out that in the Johnson impeachment 47 out of 50 witnesses were new...
Click to expand...

Didn't Clinton's trial have new witnesses?

This is a bald faced power play by Cocaine Mitch, to stop the public from hearing it directly and thus changing public opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
 
GDViking said:
If the public gets what they want, and witnesses are called who should be called?

I want to see trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Duffy and everyone who testified before the house...
Click to expand...

If Trump has admitted to asking Zelenski to investigate Biden
And Trump has admitted to refusing to provide information to the committee

(Which are the two charges in the articles)

What exactly are these witnesses going to testify too that Trump hasn't already admitted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom