democrats and the articles of impeachment

[Blade]

Its so strange to me. We hear a woman say it will have to be bipartisan. And "and the evidence would have to be so conclusive.". Really? She lies and .. its ok? The hearing. We did see witness bipartisan. 2 Dems and every Rep voted no. It was not bipartisan. And that gets ignored? To sit in America where we can search and read what our forefathers said about this.

Who wants only ONE side to vote out a seating president? Where during a hearing "no those 3 witnesses are yours. When do we get our 6?". And right there..thats fair? To look back Nixon (I saw both) had witnesses and it was bipartisan vote to impeach. Clinton exactly the same. But now with Trump.. its not bipartisan. There is no crime. A word used here "ignore".. to ignore what the President of Ukraine even said. To know what has happen last week with the ONLY one witness..that didn't hear 1st hand anything.

Whats true is.. this is it. Trump is president. Will be for 2020. And will get elected in Nov 2020. See whats going to push that even more to Trumps side so to speak. Is another "report" is coming out sometime in 2020. And its not pleasing to the left. Oh.. when I hear Dems, Media call the President of Ukraine a liar. When I witness people making fun of those that voted for Trump. Even on Christian forums. Not the way you make your case. You never ever attack anyone personally.

My 2 cents

 

[Ricky M]

You don’t know what Trump has been accused of doing with Ukraine and why and to what benefit?

It’s one thing to ignore the evidence but to flat out ignore the base accusations and their implication to the coming elections is a new level of disconnect.

Yet it's now become the first thing republicans and their supporters do.

 

[Ricky M]

So, you have EVIDENCE of a QPQ....good, I have been asking for someone who can supply that....what's the evidence that investigating corruption in Ukraine was going to benefit Trump in the election? I can't wait to hear the evidence....

Those with closed ears cannot hear

 

[Ricky M]

Its so strange to me. We hear a woman say it will have to be bipartisan. And "and the evidence would have to be so conclusive.". Really? She lies and .. its ok? The hearing. We did see witness bipartisan. 2 Dems and every Rep voted no. It was not bipartisan. And that gets ignored? To sit in America where we can search and read what our forefathers said about this.

Who wants only ONE side to vote out a seating president? Where during a hearing "no those 3 witnesses are yours. When do we get our 6?". And right there..thats fair? To look back Nixon (I saw both) had witnesses and it was bipartisan vote to impeach. Clinton exactly the same. But now with Trump.. its not bipartisan. There is no crime. A word used here "ignore".. to ignore what the President of Ukraine even said. To know what has happen last week with the ONLY one witness..that didn't hear 1st hand anything.

Whats true is.. this is it. Trump is president. Will be for 2020. And will get elected in Nov 2020. See whats going to push that even more to Trumps side so to speak. Is another "report" is coming out sometime in 2020. And its not pleasing to the left. Oh.. when I hear Dems, Media call the President of Ukraine a liar. When I witness people making fun of those that voted for Trump. Even on Christian forums. Not the way you make your case. You never ever attack anyone personally.

My 2 cents

There were republican witnesses present at the house hearing. They subpoenaed many more but Trump wouldn't let them testify.

Which makes it WHOLLY ignorant and WILLFULLY blind of them, when people say their side never got a chance to testify.

Yes Trump will win the next election.

And we will be yet one more step closer to the antichrist.

If not right on his doorstep.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Those with closed ears cannot hear

I am listening....just no one talking....at least not about evidence....

 

[Allandavid]

none of that should matter if they honestly feel they have a case ( especially if they feel he is a threat to national security.

How do you present a ‘case’ when witnesses can’t be called...??

 

[civilwarbuff]

How do you present a ‘case’ when witnesses can’t be called...??

You mean like when the house dems denied the R's witness requests?.....

 

[Hank77]

You mean like when the house dems denied the R's witness requests?.....

Who were they denied, the whistler blower and Hunter Biden.
The whistler blower is protected by law and Hunter Biden has no knowledge about what President Trump did.

 

[usexpat97]

There were republican witnesses present at the house hearing. They subpoenaed many more but Trump wouldn't let them testify.

Which makes it WHOLLY ignorant and WILLFULLY blind of them, when people say their side never got a chance to testify.

And illegal. Per Republicans' OWN STANDARD which they set when prosecuting Bill Clinton, Trump became impeachable the minute Trump obstructed the witnesses from testifying.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So, you have EVIDENCE of a QPQ....

No, the only people who would have that evidence are coincidentally being blocked from testifying by the president. Coverups are usually an indication of guilt.

what's the evidence that investigating corruption in Ukraine was going to benefit Trump in the election? I can't wait to hear the evidence....

Where are you getting he was investigating corruption? At no point has the president ever mentioned looking into corruption in Ukraine. That is a made up defense that is not evidenced by any testimony given to date.

 

[A_Thinker]

If the democrats feel that Trump is a threat or even if they simply feel that his actions are morally wrong why not send the articles to the senate? In either case the security threat or the morally wrong case it is true even if the senate does not vote to remove him. If they TRULY feel that what Trump did was wrong ( as opposed to just not liking him why not put it on the senate and send the articles over right after the vote?

They may feel that they have MORE LEVERAGE over Trump ... by holding on to them until they are sure that ALL of the 1st person witnesses will testify ...

 

[dogs4thewin]

They may feel that they have MORE LEVERAGE over Trump ... by holding on to them until they are sure that ALL of the 1st person witnesses will testify ...

Still though, that is political in nature. If they HONESTLY felt that Trump was a threat, and/or that what he did was morally wrong they would not worry about getting a conviction because right is right and wrong is wrong; therefore if they feel he was wrong they would care more about that than whether or not they actually got a conviction Plus, some of the democrats in the senate have said that as of right now they could not convict ( due to not having enough.

 

[dogs4thewin]

There were republican witnesses present at the house hearing. They subpoenaed many more but Trump wouldn't let them testify.

Which makes it WHOLLY ignorant and WILLFULLY blind of them, when people say their side never got a chance to testify.

Yes Trump will win the next election.

And we will be yet one more step closer to the antichrist.

If not right on his doorstep.

Unless Trump held a gun to their heads how on Earth did he not let them testify?

 

[Allandavid]

Unless Trump held a gun to their heads how on Earth did he not let them testify?

By forbidding them from acceding to the subpoenas...

 

[Bobber]

And illegal. Per Republicans' OWN STANDARD which they set when prosecuting Bill Clinton, Trump became impeachable the minute Trump obstructed the witnesses from testifying.

Nope. He didn't. The Supreme Court would have made that determination what his legal requirements would be. They said in the Nixon case if it had to deal with diplomatic issues the President's executive privilege would apply. The question really is isn't it rather the Congress who are OBSTRUCTING the President's Executive Privilege.

 

[Ricky M]

Unless Trump held a gun to their heads how on Earth did he not let them testify?

Wow.

 

[BobRyan]

If the democrats feel that Trump is a threat or even if they simply feel that his actions are morally wrong why not send the articles to the senate? In either case the security threat or the morally wrong case it is true even if the senate does not vote to remove him. If they TRULY feel that what Trump did was wrong ( as opposed to just not liking him why not put it on the senate and send the articles over right after the vote?

Particularly if they "really thought" they had made an unbiased, fair objective case for their claims. They would want ALL that testimony behind closed doors to come out into the light of day and there would be NO republicans in congress claiming they were never "allowed" to read or even hear the testimony of some of the witnesses - or that only part of the testimony was leaked out to the media "for effect" rather than the full context of statements released.

 

[BobRyan]

Unless Trump held a gun to their heads how on Earth did he not let them testify?

Mueller was pretty good at "creating process crimes" then in the end saying that there was "nothing there" in terms of the substance of his investigation.. leaving only the "lives destroyed" and "process crimes" in his wake as his "legacy".

Maybe the current administration is trying to limit the extent to which that kind of nonsense dominates

 

[civilwarbuff]

Where are you getting he was investigating corruption? At no point has the president ever mentioned looking into corruption in Ukraine. That is a made up defense that is not evidenced by any testimony given to date.

Really?....then why did he and the admin want another look at Burisma? Isn't that the basis of the QPQ accusation?.....or did you not get the paper that day?
https://money.usnews.com/investing/...urisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds

Thanks for admitting there is no evidence; mostly people just try to dodge the question....

 

[civilwarbuff]

They may feel that they have MORE LEVERAGE over Trump ... by holding on to them until they are sure that ALL of the 1st person witnesses will testify ...

Good luck with that....As Mitch said 'Nancy might think that is leverage'....
'No hurry': McConnell waves off Pelosi threat to withhold impeachment articles