The Democrats witness dilemma

Under no conditions was trump justified in withholding aid.
He can do so for any reason whatsoever. He doesn't need to 'justify' it.
Could it be just a coincidence that this aid was released immediately after the whistleblower came forward.
Nope. It was never withheld.
Please show us, my dear, where trump was justified in withholding aid payments approved by congress.
He didn't, but he can if he wants to, and for any reason.
You did hear Mr. Parnas say that everything was about investigating Biden, no one cared about corruption.
Obviously you don't care about the corruption of Biden or Obama.
 
One...the announcement is NOT necessary. Trump was impeached the moment the House passed the first article of impeachment.

Two...the House Managers (not the House Leaders)...DELIVERED (not announced)...the articles of impeachment to the Senate yesterday.

Your comments were made today.

See what happens when you shoot your mouth off and don't know what the hell you are talking about?

the announcement is NOT necessary. Trump was impeached the moment the House passed the first article of impeachment.

You are correct Trump was impeached when the vote was in.

And I hadn't seen the news that they had delivered the articles. OMG I wasn't up to date during my posting today. Good on you Frank you got me on that but we will see who has the last laugh. :igive:
 
I'm fine with Bolton and Mulvaney. :dunno: Mulvaney had a "drug deal" with your Star witness, Sondland.

I had no star witness. I am also fine with Bolton and Mulvaney. We'll see if they get a chance to testify. I expect if they do not...Bolton will go public with stuff that will wilt the wallpaper.

Trump's testimony has already been provided; we've all read the transcript.

That was not a transcript...and the articles cover a lot more than just that phone conversation.

In any case, there is no way that Trump will ever be allowed near this trial.

The next time he will be sworn in...he will be the defendant in a proceeding somewhere in New York.

OTOH, Joe Biden's response to any questions about Hunter's job at Burisma, ... has been .. HOW DARE YOU ... ask me that question. :palm:

If Hunter Biden's job at Brisma was as a paid assassin...it would have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the impeachment trial going on.
 
I misused the term. It was extortion and abuse of power. Toss in obstruction of Congress. The Bidens and their testimony are irrelevant. You're desperately grasping at straws.

Nope. Completely relevant. Trump can bring up ANY attempt to overturn the 2016 election as evidence to support his defense.

That includes the extortion by Biden and Obama for personal gain, it includes all the time wasted investigating some kind of 'link with the Russians', and putting Pencilneck in the spotlight for his illegal acts and exposing his 'invisible witnesses' for what they are, nothingburgers.
 
IF Trump was extorting Zelensky and if Hunter Biden is dirty, it’s a pox on both houses, and that adds up to acquittal.

AND it opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms on what was going on in Ukraine under Obama.

Senate Democrats are taking a risk if they vote for witnesses.

Don't forget the bit with China. That gets opened up too! :laugh:
 
Not how it works. The prosecutor calls his witnesses as well as the defendant. However, the defendant usually has witnesses that pertain to his case. The rightys want to call the Bidens. They have zero to do with the case. If the Reds want Biden, who is running against Trump, it would be fair to call Trump too. Trump did this to get a political advantage over Joe. Calling just him might do that. In the interest of fair play, Trump would have to testify too.
you are not interested in fair play at all.

YOU do not get to decide whether a witness has anything to do with a case or not. YOU do not get to decide who Trump gets to call as a witness. You are not the king.
 
Back
Top