You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.
I hate how cowardly Republicans are.
What I want to know is will any of these Democrat criminals ever get prosecuted?
-Everyone involved with the FISA abuse and using anti-terrorist surveillance tools on American citizens
-schiff for coordinating with the whistleblower and lying under oath
-Brennan, Clapper, etc for sedition
-Everyone who has illegally leaked and unmasked Americans on phone calls
Lately, it's, "Trump is waiting until after the election bc it would seem too political now."
Well I guess I hope so, but seems like another trash excuse. There's always a reason it's not today but tomorrow. Also, what an incredibly risky strategy... What if he loses?
The Left has a completely BOGUS investigation (Mueller), and they get numerous indictments and jail sentences (yeah they were unrelated to what he was actually supposed to be investigating, but that makes it even worse! Even without core evidence they get arrests while WE GET NOTHING.)
I hate how cowardly Republicans are.
I watched the whole thing today and IMO I think the defense got off to a good start and if they continue this way I think they will convince at least the GOP Senators to end this thing without witnesses.Is it me, our did it really seem like the house impeachment managers got their lunch handed to them today?
I watched the whole thing today and IMO I think the defense got off to a good start and if they continue this way I think they will convince at least the GOP Senators to end this thing without witnesses.
Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.
Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.
Ask that of the House when they gave up without seeking full recourse. It was rather obvious back then that they didn't want to take the time and felt they had a case to move forward with on articles without that testimony. Why then should'nt that be sufficient enough for the Senate trial?Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.
Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.
Ask that of the House when they gave up without seeking full recourse. It was rather obvious back then that they didn't want to take the time and felt they had a case to move forward with on articles without that testimony. Why then should'nt that be sufficient enough for the Senate trial?
The onus is on the House to bring forward their case for articles to the Senate. The Senate is charged with making a decision based on that evidence presented to them.
The President has the right to protect the office that he holds no matter what you think and has every right to seek Executive priviledge especially if his administration and counsel feel that they are being treated unjustly.
That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.
The investigation is supposed to happen in the House. They were in a big hurry to get articles voted in before Christmas. The House hearings were entered into evidence. It’s not on the Senate to continue an investigation the House didn’t finish.That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.