• 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.............

Rep Andy Biggs
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
·
3h
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reminds the Senate that the House Democrats never subpoenaed John Bolton and they withdrew their subpoena for Dr. Charles Kupperman.

But now they want the Senate to subpoena John Bolton - something they were unwilling to do.

That's very wrong.

https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ
 
Deuce said:
Based on the laughable idea that Democrats never asked for the witnesses and evidence Trump is blocking. :lamo

God, you people just immediately accept as fact anything you're told.
Click to expand...

They withdrew the subpoena just before a Court was to hear it.

The Democratic prosecutors are absurd, truly absurd, and rely totally on hoping people are extra stupid.

So, you claim Trump had the witnesses Schiff wants locked up in no-contact solitary at Gitmo?

How do YOU say President Trump FORCIBLY BLOCKING ANYONE from testifying? That's your claim, isn't it? That Trump has himself personally made it LITERALLY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for witnesses to testify.

How stupid can the Democrats be over this crap?
 
vesper said:
Baloney. I listened to Schiff all day trying to make the point that witnesses need to be called. What is missing is the fact that he and his cohorts thought they had enough to impeach this president without the testimony of certain persons. So damn it present the case they thought was good enough for Democrats to vote to impeach Trump in the House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is bull**** and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it is bull****.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Democrats DO have more than enough evidence to convict trump if the Republicans were honest, which they are not; but there is much more evidence the American people deserve to be obtained and used proving the case even further, which the Republicans are illegally withholding.

You are the enemy of justice and demand the truth be hidden. What would you know about someone with an ounce of common sense?
 
The Democrat's sobbing: "President Trump and his staff refuses to help us remove him from office!!!" :lamo
 
Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
·
1h
Don’t be fooled by Democrats’ last-minute fishing attempt to bring in yet more witnesses into the Senate. Democrats had months of one-sided partisan hearings in the House, and they explicitly chose to withdraw their subpoena when a witness challenged it in court.

Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
·
4h
Refresher for those covering the #SenateImpeachmentTrial: During #ClintonImpeachment,
@SenSchumer
was all about acquitting Clinton without additional witnesses & evidence in the Senate trial.


https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz
 
Craig234 said:
Wrong. The Democrats DO have more than enough evidence to convict trump if the Republicans were honest, which they are not; but there is much more evidence the American people deserve to be obtained and used proving the case even further, which the Republicans are illegally withholding.

You are the enemy of justice and demand the truth be hidden. What would you know about someone with an ounce of common sense?
Click to expand...

I am right on this and what you and Shifty and his comrades are asking for is a forking do over in the Senate. Ain't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Of course, when the Defendant is charged with an actual crime, if there is exculpatory evidence the Defense will present it and ask for immediate dismissal.

However, for the umpteenth time, this Articles do not state an "actual crime." Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

The exculpatory evidence is his Presidential Authority and Executive Privilege.

Ahhh...it's not worth repeating myself. Tagline time. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

The idea from some that 'the accused must present evidence that proves their innocence' make it abundantly clear that there isn't nearly enough US civics being taught in the education system, or one, and for another that they have in fact become liberal / progressive indoctrination centers, where the acceptance of 'the accused must present evidence that proves their innocence' has apparently been substituted for actual US civics.

If there's something to be concerned about for the future, this would certainly, and should, rank rather high on the list.
 
FACT CHECK // Democrats Didn’t Take Time to Fully Pursue Privileged Documents
January 21, 2020 | 202-228-7561
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) just offered his first amendment on the Senate floor asking to subpoena privileged documents - documents that the House didn't feel were necessary to fully pursue when they were building their case.

As U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on The Constitution, has explained time and time again, the House had every opportunity to not only issue subpoenas for documents, but to also enforce those subpoenas in the courts.

At the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Cruz said:

"As weak as the first article, the second article is orders of magnitude weaker. It is a jaw-droppingly weak article. Now, why is that? First of all, it's worth noting what the second article is. So its obstruction. Media folks report, ‘Oh! Obstruction! Okay, that's bad.' Well hold on a second. It's not obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a crime. That's not what they alleged. Why? Because they can't prove an obstruction of justice. [...] They simply said the mere fact that you assert a privilege is itself impeachable, without their bothering to issue a subpoena or litigate any of these matters. By the way, if that is impeachable conduct, all 45 presidents we've had the United States have committed impeachable conduct. It is an absurd standard to say asserting a privilege is a high crime and misdemeanor. And that's what the second article in the House [says]."

And during a radio interview with Ben Shapiro:

"You know what the House Democrats didn't do? They didn't issue subpoenas and go to court and try to enforce them."

Put simply, this is an attempt by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Democrats to use the Senate to clean up after their sham impeachment in the House. Why, when Schiff just said "the evidence against the President is overwhelming," do Democrats need privileged documents?

BOTTOM LINE: As Schiff explained on ABC This Week on Sunday, this is what Sen. Schumer's amendment is about:

"The reality is, because what the president is threatening to do is cheat in the next election, you cannot wait months and years to be able to remove that threat from office."

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4880
 
Bullseye said:
Congressional oversight is not blanket authority to dig wherever they want. Executive Privilege is one example of its limitations.
Click to expand...

And, if that use of Executive Privilege is disputed, the 3rd branch of the government, the Judiciary, makes the decision and brings a conclusion to the dispute.

You know, the thing the House Democrats didn't want to bother with. What they didn't have time for, because the election drawn nigh (yes, this was 100% political impeachment, strictly for political advantage, and in the Federalist Papers concern was expressed at this use of impeachment.

This impeachment that we are experiencing was foreseen by the founders, as documented in the Federalist Papers.
 
Bullseye said:
So enlighten us.
Click to expand...

If the POTUS asserted EP it would be noted somewhere along the line. It's not just a magical thing that gives people immunity from answering. Much like you or I would involk or plead the fifth, a president has a process to follow for invoking or asserting EP. If he did then it wouldn't take much effort for you to show it. . You feel he invoked it, I'm asking when it was officially on the record as being asserted.
 
Craig234 said:
Read your own link. It shows one unimportant honest mistake, not any lie, and that it doesn't affect Democrats' case at all. For example:

"The apparent mischaracterization, however, does not undercut Democrats' argument..."
Click to expand...

I read the link and when the head of the House Impeachment concludes that this exchange was with President Zelensky instead of an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky because the transcript read Mr. Z. That's more than a little mistake but an intent to build a case that is to their favor. It was also at the very least sloppy and not only that that lying SOB went out into the media and spread the falsehoods.
 
SkyFox76 said:
If the POTUS asserted EP it would be noted somewhere along the line. It's not just a magical thing that gives people immunity from answering. Much like you or I would involk or plead the fifth, a president has a process to follow for invoking or asserting EP. If he did then it wouldn't take much effort for you to show it. . You feel he invoked it, I'm asking when it was officially on the record as being asserted.
Click to expand...
Like ordering the person not to talk to the House?
 
Luckyone said:
Yes, he is obliged to help given that he vowed when he took office to support the Constitution and to have the welfare of the nation as his #1 priority. As president he is no longer beholden to himself but to the country. He is obligated to do what is best for the country and having a corrupt person as the president is not what is good for the country. If he is innocent, he needs to prove that as well so "all of the country" (not just those that believe in him) sleep well knowing that the president is thinking of their benefit and not just of himself.

HE IS NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN!
Click to expand...

He is a US Citizen.
Just because you don't like him, you want to abrogate his civil and constitutional rights?

Such is a fine example of a lack of understanding of US civics. Go take a class or two.
Such is a fine example of the tyranny of the left - if they don't like you, they simply take away your civil and constitutional rights.
Such should never be elected to power. It is clear and present danger to the Republic.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Total B.S.

What you're really saying here is that this nation is so weak and so fragile that it can't even withstand a few years of a highly polarizing President.

I don't buy this and I suspect that you don't really buy it either so can we just chalk it up to you having a bad hair day or something?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Republic can, will, and has, survived highly polarizing Presidents.

The Republic will not survive the routine abrogation of civil and constitutional rights of its citizens 'because some of those citizens in political power don't like others'.
 
vesper said:
I am right on this and what you and Shifty and his comrades are asking for is a forking do over in the Senate. Ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...

The Senate Republicans are all on to Schiffty and Schumer's games.
 
trixare4kids said:
Rep Andy Biggs
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
·
12h
Schiff Argument #1: We can't have a fair Senate trial w/o the documents & witnesses we didn't call in the House when we had the power. The trial will be RIGGED without them.

Schiff Argument #2: The evidence is OVERWHELMING against
@realDonaldTrump
.

He can't have it both ways.

Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) | Twitter
Click to expand...

Such contortions of logic and reason are generally used to justify BS.
 
trixare4kids said:
It puts politician Schiff's motivations all into the proper perspective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. All that's missing now is that the Democrats reap the seeds they've sown with this BS impeachment on BS charges with their BS procedure in the House.
 
trixare4kids said:
So tell us why didn't the Democrats subpoena Bolton to testify prior to sending the impeachment articles over?
Why didn't the Democrats go to the courts to press the issue prior to sending the impeachment articles over?
Why now?
Click to expand...

Schiff literally WITHDREW the subpoena before the federal court could hear it.
 
Bullseye said:
Like ordering the person not to talk to the House?
Click to expand...
No. Like the POTUS or those under him asserting executive privilege. Give us a date when there is an official documentation of Donald Trump officially asserted/invoked executive privilege.
 
joko104 said:
Schiff literally WITHDREW the subpoena before the federal court could hear it.
Click to expand...

And there's more!

Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
·
4h
Stunning admission by the House Managers.

The House Managers on the floor admitted that going to federal court would get in the way of impeaching the President before the election. And in that case — the Court be damned!

Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) | Twitter
 
vesper said:
I am right on this and what you and Shifty and his comrades are asking for is a forking do over in the Senate. Ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...


The Republic will not survive the routine abrogation of civil and constitutional rights of its citizens 'because some of those citizens in political power don't like others'.[/QUOTE]

We can only hope that this remains the case. The Senate caving to this, as well as this impeachment, would be an extremely bad precedent to set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom