• 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!

GOP releases list of witnesses for impeachment hearings

jnug said:
Is he relevant to Trump's impeachment? Biden's testimony is no more relevant to this Impeachment than the testimony of the boombox lifted by the shoplifter.
Click to expand...

My thought is, by calling on Biden they can try and make a mini investigation with their questions in hopes the public will bite. At the same time I think that would be met with a lot "irrelevant no need to answer", so a complete waste of time. Yet not above their thinking imo.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
How's that? The list of witnesses don't have knowledge of Trump's impeachable acts.

Trump has no right to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. Period. He has a stooge like Attorney General Barr that he can ask for that (which would also be corrupt and inappropriate as hell, by the way).
Click to expand...

................:2wave:

Because as I said to you yesterday:
trixare4kids said:
Sell your trollish posts to someone who buys them...
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
That list is an extremely effective argument for why Republicans shouldn’t have subpoena power. They demanded that power, and have just announced that they can’t be trusted with it.
Click to expand...

It only fair if Republicans don't have the same rights. Using the power to squash their rights should be allowed. Why would any rational human being think that all Citizens should have the same rights if you don't agree with them. 100 percent behind you.
 
Ikari said:
Deflection
Deception
Denial

The 3-D's of the Trumpeteer. It's all they got.
Click to expand...

I hope Trump can add a fourth D ..... Departure.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Maybe he'd come in chanting "it was a prefect call!!" :lol:
Click to expand...

As long as he leaves office really soon chanting, I don't especially care what he what's to bitch about. Just resign.
 
haymarket said:
As long as he leaves office really soon chanting, I don't especially care what he what's to bitch about. Just resign.
Click to expand...

I was meaning what H. Biden could add to the hearing. ;)

As far as Trump, he'll be dragged out doing his impersonation of the Black Knight in MP.
 
haymarket said:
Cross that bridge when you get to it in a few years down the road. Right now it does not mean a damn thing.
Click to expand...

We need to know if Biden needs to be impeached, if he wins the general election.
 
Cordelier said:
I fail to see the humor here - I'm giving the President his presumption of innocence. I assume that since he was pushing for a criminal investigation of the Bidens that he must have been supplied with evidence by the Department of Justice to support a reasonable suspicion of their guilt. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
Click to expand...

You all have been saying all this time that Congress doesn't require probable cause.
 
jnug said:
Its not relevant to his defense. The charge is bribery/extortion of the President and Country of Ukraine in pursuit of interests contrary to those of the United States and her National Security.

Is Biden the President of Ukraine?
Was he on the TelCon between Trump and Zalinsky?
Was he part of Trump's Rudy led goon squad pursuing a public statement of investigations from Zalinsky or did he have knowledge of it?
Is he part of the State Dept with any responsibilities to Ukraine?
Part of the NSC with any responsibilities to Ukraine?
Was Biden part of NSC legal counsel?
Was Biden part the OMB staff that was ordered to park the aid package to Ukraine?
Was Biden on Mulvaney's staff?

No to all. His testimony is not relevant to that charge and totally extraneous to any of the other charges and Articles brought against Trump.

If Hill Repugs want to bring witnesses to contest the farce and CT of Ukraine responsible for 2016 Election Interference or contest the farce and CT of Joe Biden corruption relative to Hunter Biden and the farce and CT of a Crowdstrike server in Ukraine when in fact nobody actually has a physical server nitwit CT enthusiast DonDon wants investigated some of those clowns can be called IMO. No wonder Rudy was hired by Trump as a cyber expert. Neither one knows squat about cyber or anything to do with computer technology.
Click to expand...

The Democrats can't impeach Trump and give Biden a free pass. So, you bet it is.
 
apdst said:
The Democrats can't impeach Trump and give Biden a free pass. So, you bet it is.
Click to expand...

Well, since Biden had no bearing on Trump's decision to withhold $400 million in aid in order to coerce a foreign power into interfering in our election, yeah, that's exactly what they can do.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, since Biden had no bearing on Trump's decision to withhold $400 million in aid in order to coerce a foreign power into interfering in our election, yeah, that's exactly what they can do.
Click to expand...

It's called "exculpatory evidence".
 
apdst said:
It's called "exculpatory evidence".
Click to expand...

What "exculpatory evidence" would Biden have with regards to Trump's decision to withhold $400 million in aid in order to coerce a foreign power into interfering in our election?
 
apdst said:
You all have been saying all this time that Congress doesn't require probable cause.
Click to expand...

No I haven't.... it needs the equivalent of probable cause (I say "equivalent" because it isn't a criminal proceeding) to impeach. At this stage, all that is required is the equivalent of reasonable suspicion.

To investigate - Reasonable Suspicion
To impeach - Probable Cause
To convict - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
 
apdst said:
It's called "exculpatory evidence".
Click to expand...

Exculpatory evidence would be the President (or preferably, the Attorney General) coming forward and presenting the evidence which spurred the President to try and investigate the Bidens.

Even if Hunter Biden was somehow proven to be guilty as sin, it wouldn't be exculpatory unless the President could provide evidence he knew that before the July 25 phone call.
 
apdst said:
You don't even know what exculpatory evidence is.
Click to expand...

Impress us all. What does "exculpatory" mean, in your own words?
 
trixare4kids said:
Only those who are all aboard Schiffty's sham train would take issue with the GOP's list of witnesses.
Click to expand...

This suggests you believe the witnesses can rebut the allegation that Trump abused his power as President by holding up Congressionally mandated aid, deemed relevant to national offense, for a personal political purpose. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom