Donald Trump

Greebo · 22 Jan 2020 at 01:20

plasmahal said:
If that is the case, why didn't the Dems even try to call any real fact witnesses? They did

Why was the impeachment inquiry so partisan? It wasn't

Why did the republicans not get to call any witnesses? They were allowed.

I don't think the senate should rush this or try and dismiss it immediately, but both sides can call the witnesses they want. Which is what the Dems want but the Reps want to wrap it up in 2 afternoons. Dems want a full 6 weeks

Sankari · 22 Jan 2020 at 01:29

plasmahal said:
Of course they did!!!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ly-steal-the-2016-primary-from-bernie-sanders

No they didn't, and ironically that article doesn't prove that they did. It even concludes by showing that the DNC did nothing illegal.

And he won the popular vote.

No he didn't.

Makes perfect sense once you take your head out of the sand, while Bernie is tied up in the senate, he cannot campaign. simples.

Neither can Biden, so where's the advantage for him? In any case, it doesn't stop their campaigns from running. A campaign doesn't grind to a halt just because the nominee is unavailable for a day or two.

Beer_MonsterUK · 22 Jan 2020 at 03:01

I'm working nights and watching the impeachment trial closely, it's history in the making, but what a joke. How can it be a fair trial when every subpoena vote for witnesses or documents go 47-53 every time.

I know this was only going to go one way but the American public, whichever side they believe in or support should be ashamed and appalled.

It seems the only play for the democrats is to drag it out as long as possible, throw as much crap as they can and hope some of it sticks.

Sankari · 22 Jan 2020 at 03:40

He won't be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion. But he'll never escape the stain of impeachment.

Angilion · 22 Jan 2020 at 06:04

Evangelion said:
He won't be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion. But he'll never escape the stain of impeachment.

I think he will because there's such a strong split, both regarding the impeachment and Trump in general. I think a very large majority of people in the USA either believe he's guilty of everything or guilty of nothing and that the impeachment issue won't change the minds of either of those sets of people.

VincentHanna · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:36

Angilion said:
I think he will because there's such a strong split, both regarding the impeachment and Trump in general. I think a very large majority of people in the USA either believe he's guilty of everything or guilty of nothing and that the impeachment issue won't change the minds of either of those sets of people.

One of the most recent national polls said 51% of Americans believe he should be removed and 69% believed there should be new witnesses called at the impeachment.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:51

Evangelion said:
He won't be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion. But he'll never escape the stain of impeachment.

Worked OK for Clinton who is worth millions more now than when he was president. As for then, Clinton was impeached on actual constitutional crimes as proved by the independent counsels report.

GOP are following the Clinton impeachment play book, so it will be a fair trial based on the dems own rules.

deuse · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:52

VincentHanna said:
One of the most recent national polls said 51% of Americans believe he should be removed and 69% believed there should be new witnesses called at the impeachment.

OMG you lot eat anything that you are given, with out checking if it's safe(CNN).

That poll was done by SSRS and asked 1,156 people

what a joke of a company.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:54

All the witnesses they want to call now, the dems did not bother to subpoena during their partisan enquiry.

No point crying and hissy fitting over the dems failures.

Pottsey · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:55

plasmahal said:
Makes perfect sense once you take your head out of the sand, while Bernie is tied up in the senate, he cannot campaign. simples.

So you do not like evidence and facts which is why you always run away from my posts without responding or answering the most simple questions and now you lie over more posts and show how clueless you are yet again. What are you trying to achieve here other then to completely ruin your reputation? Is clear your the person with there head in the sand and taking the gullible pills believing the Elite 1% lies.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:56

Evangelion said:
He won't be convicted, that's a foregone conclusion.

Correct as their are no actual constitutional crimes committed by the president.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 07:59

Evangelion said:
Neither can Biden, so where's the advantage for him?

Are you seriously living in another world????

Biden is not a current US senator so is free to do his campaign.

Your ignorance is so outstanding.

Pottsey · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:01

plasmahal said:
All the witnesses they want to call now, the dems did not bother to subpoena during their partisan enquiry.

No point crying and hissy fitting over the dems failures.

They did subpoena many of them just like they did subpoena the transcript and documents related to Trump's phone call which you lied about already being released when they have not. The Republicans just voted to suppress the evidence and voted to not release the documentation for the phone call. To anyone with open eyes this is a brazen cover up by the Republicans.

This isn't the Dems failures, this is pure cover-up and curation by the Republicans. If the dems had done half of what the Republicans had done you would be shouting bloody murder. But because the Republicans did it you are happy for lies, cover ups, corruption.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:05

VincentHanna said:
One of the most recent national polls said 51% of Americans believe he should be removed and 69% believed there should be new witnesses called at the impeachment.

A small biased CNN poll, you funny little troll.

Pottsey · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:05

plasmahal said:
Are you seriously living in another world????

Biden is not a current US senator so is free to do his campaign.

Your ignorance is so outstanding.

Yes your ignorance is so outstanding. The bulk of campaigning isn't done by the person at the top its done by his/her campaign team which continues even on the days the person at the top is doing other things. A day here and there has zero noticeable impact on campaigning. The person at the top will just hand that day down to his team and the campaign continues.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:07

Pottsey said:
They did subpoena many of them just like they did subpoena the transcript and documents related to Trump's phone call which you lied about already being released when they have not. The Republicans just voted to suppress the evidence and voted to not release the documentation for the phone call. To anyone with open eyes this is a brazen cover up by the Republicans.

This isn't the Dems failures, this is pure cover-up and curation by the Republicans. If the dems had done half of what the Republicans had done you would be shouting bloody murder. But because the Republicans did it you are happy for lies, cover ups, corruption.

They did not at all.

The witnesses they want now in the senate, none of them were called by the dems in the house. No cover up when it's a failure of the dems to call witnesses that were actually there.

chroniclard · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:32

Evidence is damning. GOPs defence is basically deflection, wasting time on minor technicalities, conspiracy theories and alt facts.

Trump and his cronies are a corrupt disgrace.

plasmahal · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:43

chroniclard said:
Evidence is damning.

What evidence?

All they got was hearsay and 3rd party opinions.

What actual evidence do they have for any constitutional crimes? That's right, none.

doodah · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:48

plasmahal said:
They did not at all.

The witnesses they want now in the senate, none of them were called by the dems in the house. No cover up when it's a failure of the dems to call witnesses that were actually there.

You're either lying or incompetent.

The White House has prevented the president’s chief of staff, his former national security adviser, budget officials and two individuals named as part of the alleged rogue channel behind a push for investigations by Kyiv — his personal attorney and outgoing energy secretary — from testifying before Congress. November 2019.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, reversed gears on Tuesday and said he would follow President Trump’s order to defy a House subpoena and refuse to testify as part of its impeachment inquiry rather than seek a judge’s ruling. November 2019.

The Trump administration has blocked Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, from testifying before Congress on Tuesday. October 2019 though Sondland is obviously not been called to the Senate but it still show a pattern of obstruction.

Four potentially devastating witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry will follow White House orders and will refuse to testify. Two White House lawyers, John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis, had been scheduled to give depositions Monday, along with Brian McCormick, a deputy official in the Office of Management and Budget, and Robert Blair, a presidential assistant and senior adviser to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. November 2019.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Democrats to include a deal ... effort to subpoena White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. January 2020.

Plasmahal I know this will fall on deaf ears but think about it. These witnesses should be able to clear Trump's name. Trump is trying to prove he didn't commit an impeachable offence, the Democrats are trying to prove he did. What do you think will help clear this up? Evidence and witnesses.

[FnG]magnolia said:
You pull this stuff in SC and are (somehow) allowed to get away with it. Can you keep your trolling to one thread or the other? It's tiring reading it in 2 places about the same thing.

He hasn't posted in the SC thread since early December so I can only assume he's been banned or given up which is why he's practically jizzing in his pants with this thread so he can troll more.

[FnG]magnolia · 22 Jan 2020 at 08:51

plasmahal said:
What evidence?

All they got was hearsay and 3rd party opinions.

What actual evidence do they have for any constitutional crimes? That's right, none.

You pull this stuff in SC and are (somehow) allowed to get away with it. Can you keep your trolling to one thread or the other? It's tiring reading it in 2 places about the same thing.