If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

[tall73]

Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.

So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.

 

[Charlie24]

Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.

So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.

Once again, the Constitution gives the president executive privilege for just the reason as is taking place right now.

If there is no undeniable evidence, which is what is needed to remove a duly elected president, then you will have no case.

This sham is not about removing the president, they knew from the beginning they would fail at that. There is another reason. Can you imagine what it is?

 

[Blade]

The short part of what you said "then a battle in the courts seems the way". This is what president Trump wanted to do. Take it to the Courts. If we know anything about our forefathers then we know what is happening is what they warned us about.

So the "witnesses". The house (dems only) didn't want to take this to court to get witnesses. When we hear the Dems now saying how Clinton had witnesses and documents. If you know about what happen back then with Clinton.. you know the DEMS left out allot about HOW and WHY those witnesses came and Clinton turned over documents. What was going on with Clinton was not 78 days but years. Ever witness the Dems want they could have talked to the Court and got a answer. "executive privilege" is what the OFFICE of the President has a right to.

House Senate Court.

See the way it happen with Clinton was they heard both sides then make the choice if they needed witnesses. This is they way it was to go this time but the Dems did not. The Reb said just yesterday? That they wanted to hear everything both sides and then vote on do they still need to hear from witnesses.

 

[GACfan]

Trump's embittered reactions and rebellious behavior toward this trial against him aren't the actions of an innocent man. In fact, he's actually behaving like a flamboyant and cocky mob boss who threatens and intimidates witnesses from testifying against him in court. It's more likely that he has committed a federal crime(s) that he knows would get him impeached or possibly sent to prison if he's convicted.

 

[tall73]

Trump's embittered reactions and rebellious behavior toward this trial against him aren't the actions of an innocent man. In fact, he's actually behaving like a flamboyant and cocky mob boss who threatens and intimidates witnesses from testifying against him in court. It's more likely that he has committed a federal crime(s) that he knows would get him impeached or possibly sent to prison if he's convicted.

So why not see it through in the courts?

 

[GACfan]

So why not see it through in the courts?

Knowing Trump, he would intentionally tie up the courts with different cases for years to come. He already has an estimated 3,500 lawsuits either against him personally or against his businesses.

We Investigated, Donald Trump is Named in at Least 169 Federal Lawsuits

The People vs. Donald Trump: Every Major Lawsuit and Investigation the President Faces

 

[Charlie24]

The short part of what you said "then a battle in the courts seems the way". This is what president Trump wanted to do. Take it to the Courts. If we know anything about our forefathers then we know what is happening is what they warned us about.

So the "witnesses". The house (dems only) didn't want to take this to court to get witnesses. When we hear the Dems now saying how Clinton had witnesses and documents. If you know about what happen back then with Clinton.. you know the DEMS left out allot about HOW and WHY those witnesses came and Clinton turned over documents. What was going on with Clinton was not 78 days but years. Ever witness the Dems want they could have talked to the Court and got a answer. "executive privilege" is what the OFFICE of the President has a right to.

House Senate Court.

See the way it happen with Clinton was they heard both sides then make the choice if they needed witnesses. This is they way it was to go this time but the Dems did not. The Reb said just yesterday? That they wanted to hear everything both sides and then vote on do they still need to hear from witnesses.

Clinton's executive privilege went out the window when he lied before a grand jury.

They had undeniable evidence that he committed a felony.

That's not the case with Trump. It's all hearsay and conjecture.

The House should not have sent articles of impeachment without evidence of a crime committed.

Now the House wants the Senate to find evidence they couldn't produce. It is not the Senate's job to do this, they are to try the evidence from the House, and that's it.

It's an impeachment in search of a crime. Exactly why our forefathers gave executive privilege to the president to protect himself.

 

[tall73]

Knowing Trump, he would intentionally tie up the courts with different cases for years to come. He already has an estimated 3,500 lawsuits either against him personally or against his businesses.

We Investigated, Donald Trump is Named in at Least 169 Federal Lawsuits

The People vs. Donald Trump: Every Major Lawsuit and Investigation the President Faces

If you want to get the documents, and free up the witnesses, the court is the redress.

Is everyone just saying that they give up then?

 

[Jamesone5]

This is the original lie that definitely caught my attention

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

This from Trump's own transcript and there is no dispute over what he actually said in the phone call to the Leader of Ukraine. But he goes on to claim it was Perfect call and continues to call it a "witch hunt"

That, with the over 16,000 lies he has uttered as President in just 3 years. His lawyers try to muddy up the waters and get the attention away what he originally asked with their foolish arguments. Of course on his lawyer team is a defense attorney for OJ Simpson and we know how that trial turned out.

This has bad implications for us Christians if we follow a know liar or love truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

We can choose to follow the unrighteous deception in this world or Not. Christ and his Words or these unrighteous deceptions.

Did not Christ warn us repeatedly about deceptions or deceiving. One verse is this one;

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

We can let one man and all his supporters deceive us in their lies and those who are defending those lies or Not.

I know which one I firmly choose.

 

[Charlie24]

This is the original lie that definitely caught my attention

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

This from Trump's own transcript and there is no dispute over what he actually said in the phone call to the Leader of Ukraine. But he goes on to claim it was Perfect call and continues to call it a "witch hunt"

That, with the over 16,000 lies he has uttered as President in just 3 years. His lawyers try to muddy up the waters and get the attention away what he originally asked with their foolish arguments. Of course on his lawyer team is a defense attorney for OJ Simpson and we know how that trial turned out.

This has bad implications for us Christians if we follow a know liar or love truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

We can choose to follow the unrighteous deception in this world or Not. Christ and his Words or these unrighteous deceptions.

Did not Christ warn us repeatedly about deceptions or deceiving. One verse is this one;

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

We can let one man and all his supporters deceive us in their lies and those who are defending those lies or Not.

I know which one I firmly choose.

So you know that the intentions of the president was to find dirt on Biden in case he becomes the Dem candidate for president?

You do know that the president has the authority to investigate alleged crimes of Americans with foreign entities?

Last I checked, we in America are innocent until proven guilty.

What I'm saying is "prove it" given the legal laws afforded the president to protect himself.

The burden is on YOU, not the president!

 

[tall73]

This is the original lie that definitely caught my attention

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

This from Trump's own transcript and there is no dispute over what he actually said in the phone call to the Leader of Ukraine. But he goes on to claim it was Perfect call and continues to call it a "witch hunt"

That, with the over 16,000 lies he has uttered as President in just 3 years. .

I don't think it was a perfect call. However, we need to establish motive in this case, and that is what is under dispute. There is a desire to talk to witnesses, and get documents that would clarify that.

Obtaining those is the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss obtaining the documents, please do so.

If you want to discuss the general merits of impeachment or Trumps trustworthiness (or lack thereof), another thread would be best.

 

[Jamesone5]

So you know that the intentions of the president was to find dirt on Biden in case he becomes the Dem candidate for president?

You do know that the president has the authority to investigate alleged crimes of Americans with foreign entities?

Last I checked, we in America are innocent until proven guilty.

What I'm saying is "prove it" given the legal laws afforded the president to protect himself.

The burden is on YOU, not the president!

Why is the burden on me for my solid decision which is to follow Christ and His Truth against the lies?

It is abundantly clear that his political rival he wanted to dig up dirt on as if an admittingly corrupt Country would find something valid?

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

 

[tall73]

Why is the burden on me for my solid decision which is to follow Christ and His Truth against the lies?

You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.

Your vote against Trump in the future is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about getting specific information.

I didn't vote for Trump the first time. I don't plan to in the next election either. However, we still have questions about what did happen in that call, what led up to it, and what happened afterward. The witnesses and documents can fill in those gaps.

 

[Jamesone5]

I don't think it was a perfect call. However, we need to establish motive in this case, and that is what is under dispute. There is a desire to talk to witnesses, and get documents that would clarify that.

Obtaining those is the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss obtaining the documents, please do so.

If you want to discuss the general merits of impeachment or Trumps trustworthiness (or lack thereof), another thread would be best.

I imagine if Obama had made that phone call and used those exact words. they would nlot hesitate to impeach him. What is the title of this Thead? Oh yeah

If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

When is a lie not really a lie--simple, when the President utters them to his supporters

Might I remind you of this verse?

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

 

[tall73]

I imagine if Obama had made that phone call and used those exact words. they would nlot hesitate to impeach him. What is the title of this Thead? Oh yeah

If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

When is a lie not really a lie--simple, when the President utters them to his supporters

Might I remind you of this verse?

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

The title of the thread leads into the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is regarding the obtaining of witness testimony and documents related to the call.

You are not on that topic.

 

[wing2000]

Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

Maybe. IMO, a lot depends on what McConnell would tell him in such a scenario. If, say, McConnell would say - "I may lose x GOP votes if you don't provide witnesses" Trump may back down.

Now, say Trump refuses and subpoenas are ordered. Is the Senate really going to wait out a court fight over the next year while a Presidential election is in process?

 

[Jamesone5]

You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.

Your vote against Trump in the future is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about getting specific information.

I didn't vote for Trump the first time. I don't plan to in the next election either. However, we still have questions about what did happen in that call, what led up to it, and what happened afterward. The witnesses and documents can fill in those gaps.

You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.--Tall73 [who claims he is a Christian}


?????????

 

[tall73]

Maybe. IMO, a lot depends on what McConnell would tell him in such a scenario. If, say, McConnell would say - "I may lose x GOP votes if you don't provide witnesses" Trump may back done.

I would like them to vote to see the witnesses. Technically that could still happen. They were establishing procedure in the earlier vote.

Now, say Trump refuses and subpoenas are ordered. Is the Senate really going to wait out a court fight over the next year while a Presidential election is in process?

Likely not, unfortunately for political reasons. However, the Democrats in the house have every reason to continue in the courts. But they seem to have decided on an optics win instead.

 

[tall73]

You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.--Tall73 [who claims he is a Christian}

I was answering your question.

You don't need to meet a burden of proof.

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you may be happier in another thread.

 

[Jamesone5]

The title of the thread leads into the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is regarding the obtaining of witness testimony and documents related to the call.

You are not on that topic.

Obstructing {Truth] from this.

If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

It certainly does not say what he is obstructing.