The Democrats witness dilemma

floridafan said:
Once Congress approves funding there is only a very slight ability to hold up funding by the President. He did not go that route
Click to expand...

Under normal circumstances lol, the courts would settle the executive vs legislative issue. ONLY AFTER THEN, could it be determined whether Trump was out of bounds or not.

The constitution grants any president—even if his name is Trump, considerable authority in dealing with foreign policy issues and whether federal money might be misused by a foreign nation certainty falls in that category.
 
Darth Omar said:
Under normal circumstances lol, the courts would settle the executive vs legislative issue. ONLY AFTER THEN, could it be determined whether Trump was out of bounds or not.

The constitution grants any president—even if his name is Trump, considerable authority in dealing with foreign policy issues and whether federal money might be misused by a foreign nation certainty falls in that category.
Click to expand...

Really?

Maybe you can direct me to that part of the constitution, to once again show you are not lying?
 
Darth Omar said:
In a ‘fair’ trial the defense gets to call their own witnesses lol.

You want a fair trial, right? If Hunter turns out Ukraine-dirty, poof. It doesn’t matter what Bolton says, Trump was justified in withholding the aid—*assuming* he did. As president he was justified anyway, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Morning, D.O.
 
Darth Omar said:
Under normal circumstances lol, the courts would settle the executive vs legislative issue. ONLY AFTER THEN, could it be determined whether Trump was out of bounds or not.
Click to expand...
bingo. the GAO is an arm of Congress. Executive says the funds just need to be released by fiscal years end
 
floridafan said:
This trial is all about Donald Trump and no one else. You are trying so hard to muddy the waters, but it won't work.
Click to expand...

No, it's about proving to the Democrats that getting your ass kicked in an election isn't a cause for impeachment.

You idiots are slow learners.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s clear that Democrats need witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial since it’s a slam dunk acquittal based on the articles Nancy solemnly/gleefully sent over to the Senate.

Which begs the question if they should have been sent to begin with—but Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment*, so yeah.

At any rate, that means the defense gets to call Hunter Biden, and others, since Democrats insist on the trial being ‘fair’. Do Democrats risk playing ‘dog catches car’ by putting Hunter Biden under oath? What confidence do they have that Hunter is clean besides reassuring themselves, back and forth, that Hunter is clean? The fact is, Hunter Biden is a Black Box—no one knows what’s inside it until it’s opened. And we all know his past is ‘checkered’, to be diplomatic about it.

Or how about the WB? For months, Democrats and their media minions have been lying about the WB protection law which *doesn’t* guarantee anonymity. If Democrats want Bolton to appear—so will the WB. Then we’ll get to find out if there was anything resembling a set-up going on between the WB and Adam Schiff.

Shifty may be a House manager but he’s also *a material witness* to how this whole thing started. Do Democrats really want a known liar under oath in a Senate trial? This won’t be the basement of the House where Democrats can tightly control everything.

This can get ugly, quick. But I fully expect Democrats to keep the pedal to the metal.
Click to expand...

My guess is that if Trump confessed to blackmailing and extorting Zelensky solely for his personal political benefit...AND SHOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT...

...the assholes who support him will continue to support him...

...and the Republican Senators, all terrified of those moronic, continued supporters, will acquit him.

If the trial were fair...and Republican Senators not terrified of the abomination, Trump...calling both Bidens would not mean a thing. If they were both dirty up to their eyeballs WOULD NOT JUSTIFY withholding the appropriation.

My guess is that Chief Justice Roberts would rule against the Bidens testifying...and I doubt the senators would vote to overrule him.
 
floridafan said:
I am still waiting to hear why the whistleblower would need to be called
Click to expand...

To determine if this was a set up....by the same people who brought us ILLEGAL SPYING on OPPOSITION POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS and the RUSSIA LIE....
 
Last edited:
Thomas Jefferson:

“The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive al- together. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Excep- tions are to be construed strictly.”
 
floridafan said:
I am still waiting to hear why the whistleblower would need to be called
Click to expand...

Well, there are questions surrounding how this all began.

The I.G. stated that there was an indication of bias in favor of a democrat contender [hmm..I wonder who that might be lol?]. Furthermore, there was alleged contact between the WB and Schiff and/or members of his staff prior to the release of the WB report.

This raises the question of whether the WB had ‘help’ in crafting the document. And if that went on, it raises a host of other questions.

If one party wants to remove a president every effort should be made to ensure the whole process—from beginning to end, was done ‘fairly’, right?

Let’s not become Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top