GOP confident of win on witnesses

[trixare4kids]

There also seems to be a few democrats that are on board with that as well.

Do you have their names and are they up for reelection?

ETA: Or do they believe the Democrats haven't made their case?

I heard the momentum has changed to there being no witnesses.

 

[ludin]

Again, you may be able to make a legal argument, but not the political or logical one. We all saw Trump obstruct the House from getting it's witnesses, and now we see McConnel do the same. You seem to be operating on legal technicalities here, avoiding the reality of the situation. Good luck selling this to the public, with yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showing 75% of the public wants to hear from the witnesses.

(Axios) Poll: 75% of Americans say witnesses should testify at impeachment trial

Again, the public knows a fix when they see it. Hiding behind legal technicalities, arguable technicalities, does not make the matter right.

again he didn't obtruct anything. The president is allowed to exert executive privilege plenty of presidents have done it and it was never considered obstruction.
it is only considered obstruction after a court has ruled against the executive office and they still refuse to turn it over.

please learn the difference. the argument is completely logical.
there are no legal technicalities.
it is within the law and it is constitution per the SCOTUS.

you want to fight an executive privilege claim then do so through the court system.

 

[ludin]

Do you have their names and are they up for reelection?

they weren't published in the article. i doubt they are going to talk about it.

 

[trixare4kids]

they weren't published in the article. i doubt they are going to talk about it.

Thanks.
Sorry, I had a late edit as well.

 

[GDViking]

When did MAGA become a democrat slogan?

Democrats never believed the lie that America ever stopped being great...

 

[trixare4kids]

I read that Joe Manchin said the Republicans request to have Hunter Biden as a witness should happen. The Democrat's worst nightmare. I don't think the Republicans really mind witnesses, even Bolton. I don't think he said anything that damning in his book that we don't already know. Still, it comes down to the president's foreign policy that people like Bolton didn't agree with.

My feeling on all this is that the Democrats are bluffing. They don't really want witnesses. They want to come out of this saying that the Republicans wanted NO witnesses and that they are on the wrong side of history.
Hopefully, the three Democrats who say they are leaning toward voting for no witnesses ends this nonsense on Friday.

 

[Chomsky]

again he didn't obtruct anything. The president is allowed to exert executive privilege plenty of presidents have done it and it was never considered obstruction.
it is only considered obstruction after a court has ruled against the executive office and they still refuse to turn it over.

please learn the difference. the argument is completely logical.
there are no legal technicalities.
it is within the law and it is constitution per the SCOTUS.

you want to fight an executive privilege claim then do so through the court system.

It's an argument to a matter of degree. And you and I very much disagree here.

 

[ludin]

It's an argument to a matter of degree. And you and I very much disagree here.

it isn't an argument to a matter of degree.

the president is allowed to claim executive authority.
all presidents back to washington have claimed executive authority in matters.

The SCOTUS has ruled this legal in plenty of court rulings.

if you want to fight an executive claim then you must go to court.
which is what republicans did in the fast and furious case. They won the court ruling.
Holder still refused to hand them over even though he lost a court case on it and was held in contempt of congress for doing so.

that is how you handle things like that.

you can't cry obstruction when no obstruction occurred.

 

[trixare4kids]

it isn't an argument to a matter of degree.

the president is allowed to claim executive authority.
all presidents back to washington have claimed executive authority in matters.

The SCOTUS has ruled this legal in plenty of court rulings.

if you want to fight an executive claim then you must go to court.
which is what republicans did in the fast and furious case. They won the court ruling.
Holder still refused to hand them over even though he lost a court case on it and was held in contempt of congress for doing so.

that is how you handle things like that.

you can't cry obstruction when no obstruction occurred.

The Democrats don't get to cry over the rush job they did with the impeachment articles.
The time to subpoena witnesses, like John Bolton, was before the senate trial.

 

[Chomsky]

it isn't an argument to a matter of degree.

the president is allowed to claim executive authority.
all presidents back to washington have claimed executive authority in matters.

The SCOTUS has ruled this legal in plenty of court rulings.

if you want to fight an executive claim then you must go to court.
which is what republicans did in the fast and furious case. They won the court ruling.
Holder still refused to hand them over even though he lost a court case on it and was held in contempt of congress for doing so.

that is how you handle things like that.

you can't cry obstruction when no obstruction occurred.

It comes down to intent & degree. CF - Abuse of Power.

 

[GDViking]

a sham hearing deserves a sham trial wouldn't you agree or are you just being inconsistent?
sham hearings are ok as long as we are going after people we don't like?

So even with more evidence coming out your only defense for the criminal in chief is its all a sham???:lamo

 

[GDViking]

it isn't an argument to a matter of degree.

the president is allowed to claim executive authority.
all presidents back to washington have claimed executive authority in matters.

The SCOTUS has ruled this legal in plenty of court rulings.

if you want to fight an executive claim then you must go to court.
which is what republicans did in the fast and furious case. They won the court ruling.
Holder still refused to hand them over even though he lost a court case on it and was held in contempt of congress for doing so.

that is how you handle things like that.

you can't cry obstruction when no obstruction occurred.

Please point out when and for what any executive privilege has been asserted...

 

[Airyaman]

a sham hearing deserves a sham trial wouldn't you agree or are you just being inconsistent?
sham hearings are ok as long as we are going after people we don't like?

What "sham hearing" are you talking about?

 

[ludin]

So even with more evidence coming out your only defense for the criminal in chief is its all a sham???:lamo

i am simply using your own argument.
sorry you don't like your own argument being made.

 

[ludin]

What "sham hearing" are you talking about?

i guess you didn't see the sham hearing that schiff ran. that or i am seeing the typical
leftist denial fallacy again.

 

[ludin]

Please point out when and for what any executive privilege has been asserted...

trump has been saying it all long leftist obtuse and denial fallacies are no longer valid.
by telling people not to testify he is exerting executive privilege.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Again, you may be able to make a legal argument, but not the political or logical one. We all saw Trump obstruct the House from getting it's witnesses, and now we see McConnel do the same. You seem to be operating on legal technicalities here, avoiding the reality of the situation. Good luck selling this to the public, with yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showing 75% of the public wants to hear from the witnesses.

(Axios) Poll: 75% of Americans say witnesses should testify at impeachment trial

Again, the public knows a fix when they see it. Hiding behind legal technicalities, arguable technicalities, does not make the matter right.

You know my position on "polls" by now. I lend them very little credence, even when they support MY viewpoint.

Citing a poll (even an aggregate) simply reflects a time-sensitive "opinion" subject to change at the slightest change in the political winds.

What's worse is when those "winds" are being blown by overtly and admittedly biased news sources.

Meanwhile, people's opinions can and will change. :shrug:

In any case, you also know me (via my history of Forum posts throughout nearly 7 years) by now. I have made my political positions clear since almost day one, and they are recorded in my blogs.

But even if what you say turns out to be true, then Trump is unlikely to be re-elected.

As such, what's your real concern then? :unsure13:

 

[trixare4kids]

It comes down to intent & degree. CF - Abuse of Power.

The president's concern to protect our country from the interference of countries known to have been corrupt,(Ukraine) is not an abuse of power. The president has the duty to protect US, the taxpayers, and in turn we don't have to agree with his foreign policy or methods, but his privilege to conduct this policy is not an abuse of his power. The Democrats failed to prove their case. Why else are they now crying for witnesses? The job of the senate is not to accommodate those who rushed to judgment when sending over the impeachment articles to the Senate.

Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see witnesses called by both sides, my ideal list of witnesses...>>> (the whistleblower, Schiff, his aides, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Zelensky) but that's not my call.

 

[Bullseye]

"Free reign" means congress has told Trump he has no restraints. For example, he is now free to withhold funds to foreign nations, in order to strong-arm them into assisting him in his upcoming election.

Goes along with his Constitutional authority as the sole foreign affairs person. He sent the Javelin missiles separately, BTW. Found appropriated by the FY2019 Defense Appropriate Bill have to be, in most cases, obligated by September 30, 2019. They were; in fact in one of Mulvaney's press conferences he said they were aware they had a deadline coming up. I haven't seen one scrap of evidence that Trump was doing this to help himself in an election that was fifteen months away; but I have seen several aides reporting he was concerned that Europe wasn't contributing much and he was also concerned about Ukraine corruption.

BTW: I actually think Trump would favor Joe as a rival in November. Remember he WON against Obama's endorsement of Clinton. AND her running as "Obama's third term". I'd bet Trump's first comment in debates with Joe would be "Hey, Joe, what state are we in".

 

[bomberfox]

"Free reign" means congress has told Trump he has no restraints. For example, he is now free to withhold funds to foreign nations, in order to strong-arm them into assisting him in his upcoming election.

Did you hear Dershowitz today? Thats the sort of precedence the GOP wants to set. I would rather have anarchy than that sort of precedent. The GOP is a deranged fascist party.

 

[slick]

The latest news on calling witnesses...


So we shall see...

GOP confident of win on witnesses | TheHill

Anyone trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill in order to consider this an offense worthy of impeachment should be subject to ridicule.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I read that Joe Manchin said the Republicans request to have Hunter Biden as a witness should happen. The Democrat's worst nightmare. I don't think the Republicans really mind witnesses, even Bolton. I don't think he said anything that damning in his book that we don't already know. Still, it comes down to the president's foreign policy that people like Bolton didn't agree with.

My feeling on all this is that the Democrats are bluffing. They don't really want witnesses. They want to come out of this saying that the Republicans wanted NO witnesses and that they are on the wrong side of history.
Hopefully, the three Democrats who say they are leaning toward voting for no witnesses ends this nonsense on Friday.

Yeah - the Democrats want to hammer the Republicans for wanting this idiot circus to end sooner rather than later, but they also want THEIR witnesses.

You know, Tom Hanks as Mr. Rogers saying Trump should be impeached - solid people like that...

:thumbs:

 

[Airyaman]

i guess you didn't see the sham hearing that schiff ran. that or i am seeing the typical
leftist denial fallacy again.

Why was it a sham? Because he didn't call witnesses who would have no real bearing on the trial?

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah....I know. Hence my statement:

- "They reduced impeachment to a partisan tool against Clinton for his choice to lie to Congress over admitting to adultery and a blow job."

OK. Fair enough.

 

[eohrnberger]

There were two Democratic votes against the Trump articles and four Republican against Clinton's.

The very minor number your taking refuge in is itself wrong.

It is either a true statement or it is not a true statement.

I posted a true statement. :shrug:

"your taking refuge in is itself wrong" is little more than malignment of someone you don't agree who posted the truth. :shrug:
Says a lot more about you than about me. :shrug: