I'm glad he flip-flopped on that decision. I wonder if he would do that if he were to become president.
So you just don't do it and hope for the best?
People complain about this President, and just think by some miracle he will be cooperative? Come on now. Even you know that won't happen.
I would force the subject, and if it was after the election? Fine, and move forward. Once the Supreme court says he has to? He can't stonewall anymore to the extent that people seem to think he can.
It's rather ignorant to think he will just hand over what they want because they are screaming about it. In the meantime calling things a sham after claiming they have indisputable facts and proof? If that was indeed true? They wouldn't need witnesses and documents. Problem is I don't think they believe their own statements.
I think the Biden thing will go no where personally. Guilty or Not it won't. So, they can use their indisputable facts and prove their case with the Ukraine part. The executive privilege claim on the other article? I don't see that going anywhere. Every President since George Washington has used it. You use the courts if you feel there is an exception they won't honor - which has been done successfully before. The fact they didn't want to because of an election? That won't fly.
That's what they should have done in the first place. Wait for the election, and see if he is removed.
Then Mulvaney and Bolton should have testified before the House.
The other side is the side with the guns, already promised to "Hunt them (Democrats) down" if Trump is removed.
You sound confused, honestly. I am quite fine if Trump and Pelosi have Mulvaney and Bolton and Biden testify. Pelosi has not prevented Biden from testifying if he wants to.They can testify before the Senate, just as Biden and the whistleblower can--if only Pelosi would stop indicating her sudden lack of confidence in the process by putting a stop to it all.
What does that deranged man have to do with this discussion, Aldebaran?You mean like the guy who did the latest church shooting; the guy who kept wanting money from the church and then opened fire when he didn't get it? Our side may be known for having the guns, but it's the other side that actually uses those guns when they don't get what they want.
You sound confused, honestly. I am quite fine if Trump and Pelosi have Mulvaney and Bolton and Biden testify. Pelosi has not prevented Biden from testifying if he wants to.
What does that deranged man have to do with this discussion, Aldebaran?
Wait, I thought the spin was that non-first hand accounts were useless. So why would Biden and the whistleblower be needed? Is hearsay testimony now valid?They can testify before the Senate, just as Biden and the whistleblower can
The GOP far right are normally the ones who talk about guns, 2dA, and starting a CW, Aldebaran.
Wait, I thought the spin was that non-first hand accounts were useless. So why would Biden and the whistleblower be needed? Is hearsay testimony now valid?
It is so hard to keep up with these changing stories.
It was an investigation into Biden that started this whole thing. Perhaps it's reasonable for a questioning of him be the end to it as well.
Why can you not understand that Biden is not what this trial is about? You want to investigate Biden, go ahead start one up and burn him at the stake for all I care. I personally don’t want him in the DNC primary. But this trial is about Trump pressuring a foreign country to dig up dirt on his own personal political rival using my tax paying dollars and obstructing Congress from investigating it. Biden personally has zero to do with either action.
If I were the Democrats I would cut a deal, Biden will testify if Trump will. At least Trump is first hand account to this, Biden doesn’t even have hearsay to any of this and I know how Republicans have said we should not listen to any hearsay testimony.
If it has nothing to do with Biden, then why do you use the phrase, "dig up dirt on his own personal political rival"? Who is that "political rival" (who also wants to be our next president)?
You mean you want a quid pro quo?
Did Jodie Foster have to testify at John Hinkley’s trial? She was the reason he shot Reagan so she should have testified on what she knew.
Am I using tax dollars for personal advantage and violating an international treaty in making this deal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?