Trump should have called Mick Mulvaney, Devon Nunes, Lindsey Graham, Pompeo, and Rudy. I wonder why he didn't ???
51 - 49
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
Trump should have called Mick Mulvaney, Devon Nunes, Lindsey Graham, Pompeo, and Rudy. I wonder why he didn't ???
So the other 17 witnesses were ineffective? You need one more witness to prove what you said is overwhelming evidence to remove a duly elected president? Shoulda made Bolton #18, huh?
You did. 17 of them, and you claimed your case was overwhelming. It wasn't.
Pompeo, Pence, Rudy, Nunes, Graham, Perry, Bolton. For starters.
I guess the House should have called them when they wouldn't be subjected to cross-examination by Reps. For starters...
...but you did have overwhelming evidence without them...
Blocked from Testifying by White House. WHY???
Innocent until proven guilty always follows with a trial with witnesses. So far we don't have innocent until proven guilty, we have innocent until the cows come home. Why? Because the whole context of proven in proven guilty his been disallowed. We didn't have a trial we had a floor show. Now we get to wait for the ball to drop on the ratings of said performance going into the election year.
I am going to be a temporary spelling Nazi here. A council is a panel of people, while a counsel is a lawyer. Mueller is one person, so it was impossible for him to be a council.
The Mueller Report came out months before the phone call, so could not possibly have considered the phone call that had not happened yet. If there is one investigation against you, there is no prohibition of other investigations if you commit more crimes.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Didn’t need to
Don’t worry. Schiff will subpoena all of them
Hopefully Graham grows a set of balls and starts playing the democrat party game. He won’t but one can wish
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Indeed.
If Democrats insist on going down this road there’s nothing that prevents the Senate from opening its own investigation into how this all got started. Subpoena Eric Ciaramella so we can see if he was ‘coached’ in any way by Schiff or his team. And finally see which candidate he was biased towards and whether that influenced his leak.
Did he have any conversations with ‘Candidate A’ prior to leaking to Schiff’s committee? If Democrats want to continue to go after Trump on this, Graham can threaten to blow the lid off this thing.
But yeah, that takes gonads.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Answer my question Jack, Your side had 17 witnesses and still couldn't build a credible case so you demand more witnesses just to drag this thing out. Talk about a transparent political gimmick.
In the Senate, there were zero witnesses. Not 17, but zero. The case was more than credible and it was hamstrung by Trump's blanket order to ignore subpoenas and court orders. The closest people to Trump's crimes were blocked from testifying. That makes the whole process flawed and against the Constitution and justice.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
You are absolutely correct and your side couldn't even present enough evidence to convince the Senate there was any need for more witnesses. Everything your wonderful House presented did not rise to the level of impeachment. So why should the Senate spend countless more dollars on a Democrat fishing expedition? The clowns in the House should have waited till they had a real case.
These types of spelling and lexical errors are so common among the red rabble I usually let them go, unless I'm dealing with a huge jerk, (e.g. "judgment" with the superfluous e also common.) I say if they can manage to stumble through a string of symbolic logic to cobble together an even plausibly rational thought then de minimus non curat lex.
I punish mal intent. That captures about 99%, sadly.
I wonder if Bolton's book will name all the names involved in the extortion plot?
Like Shifty Schiff, the whistle blower etc..
The Case was made with the Transcript 'Do me a Favor'. Everything else was just frosting on the Cake.
Bolton is a staunch Republican, we'll see what he has to say.