Why is Schiff Witholding Documents?

[Aldebaran]

Nonsense! The problem is the attempt to turn the impeachment of Donald Trump into a trial on the Bidens. That is a distraction.

At the same time, the impeachment process could very well be said to be a distraction from an impending investigation of the Bidens. After all, didn't Trump try to have the Bidens investigated? What immediately followed that? Impeach Trump!

 

[Aldebaran]

I think the answer is obvious as well... but I suspect my answer is different from yours.

Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.

To keep a negative spotlight on Trump for as long as possible. Calling witnesses would extend the trial for up to another couple months--a couple months closer to the election.

They can turn the GOP into the "Defend Donald" party, but they have to remember that some of them will have to survive in a post-Donald political landscape. Donald will vacate the Oval Office someday -- When (12:00 on January 20, 2025 at the absolute latest) and how (only six ways for it to happen; and one of them definitely will) remains to be seen.

What happens to them when their Great Leader is gone?

The same thing the democrats did when their "Great Leader" had used up his two terms in office. They went through the process of selecting from a pool of eligible candidates to find the next nominee. The Republicans would do the same thing.

A deal's a deal -- you've told me your answer, so I'll tell you mine.

Hate cuts both ways. Even Donald's supporters freely admit they don't like him, but they hate the alternative. That's fair enough; I concede that the Democratic field is pretty lackluster. So Donald is more or less the lesser of all possible evils -- agreed?

Sure, I'll admit I don't particularly like him in a personal way. I wouldn't choose him as a friend. I cringe when he writes tweets that are questionable. However, I still side with his policies. In fact, the policies of the Republican side is always more in line with mine than the democrat ones are. In general, Republican means pro-life, pro-gun, pro-freedom, national security, better economy, lower taxes. Democrat means the opposite. So whether it was Donald Trump, or Romney, or Cruz, etc. running in this or the 2016 election, I'd vote Republican. After watching the democrat debates this time around, I've heard about what the dems are about, and those things are polar opposite of my own values.
So no, I don't "love" Donald. But I choose him to be my president.

Which means that not only is Donald's acquittal a guarantee, but so is his reelection.

Now, here's where we disagree -- I think the Democratic Party is fully aware of this. But while "hatred of the alternative" protects Donald, it doesn't protect his minions in Congress. Remember, they have to run for re-election as well, and with the whole world seeing them debase themselves to protect Donald, some of the alternatives to them might seem quite palatable indeed...

Biden will get the nomination, but impeachment or not, we both know he doesn't stand a chance. But November isn't just about the White House: the House is up for re-election (which I'm predicting won't flip), as is a third of the Senate -- which this time around, will be 22 GOP incumbents and only 12 Dems, which includes one of Donald's chief cheerleaders: Graham, and the keeper of the graveyard where progress goes to die: McConnell.

The Dems know that they can't get rid of Donald, but if they can expose his minions as... well, his minions, flipping the Senate will neuter him quite nicely.

Like I said, Alde... there's always a bigger picture.

If others vote as I do, according to what they value, most of them will probably vote either Republican all the way, or democrat all the way. What you call a "hatred of the alternative" can happen for House and Senate candidates as well. The 2 parties are very polarized and each side is fully entrenched far apart from the other, and the dem or Rep candidates are pretty much in line with whatever the upcoming presidential nominees are going to be.

 

[Aldebaran]

His testimony is not required.

How do you know? Don't We The People deserve to hear what he has to say? Doesn't Trump have the right to face his accuser? Or is only the president of the United States the only defendant in history to not have that right?

 

[Aldebaran]

Funny how this contradicts all of the innocent until proven guilty, if there's no proof there's no need to testify messaging we've been hearing.

But I guess talking points don't need to be consistent with each other, just truthy-sounding enough to quiet the nagging doubts until another time.

If that's your response to the idea of a person being able to face his accuser in court, then you're also attempting to make the case that the accused himself shouldn't even be mounting a defense since he's assumed innocent anyway.
But you failed in that.

 

[Aldebaran]

New information keeps coming out which makes it harder and harder for the GOP to risk their election chances by supporting Donald.

Wrong!
Murkowski to vote 'no' on witnesses, dashing Democrats' hopes of extending trial

Alexander to vote 'no' on witnesses, bringing trial close to end

Seems like waiting for the will of the people isn't a bad thing in a representative democracy.

The will of the people will be heard in November of 2020 just as it was in November of 2016. That's the way it should be.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Wrong!
Murkowski to vote 'no' on witnesses, dashing Democrats' hopes of extending trial

Alexander to vote 'no' on witnesses, bringing trial close to end



The will of the people will be heard in November of 2020 just as it was in November of 2016. That's the way it should be.

So if a Supreme Court spot opens up, you support the McConnell rule of waiting until after the election to fill the seat and will speak out if it is not followed?

 

[Aldebaran]

So if a Supreme Court spot opens up, you support the McConnell rule of waiting until after the election to fill the seat and will speak out if it is not followed?

What does that have to do with my post, or the discussion that we're having, or even the topic of this thread???

 

[TLK Valentine]

If others vote as I do, according to what they value, most of them will probably vote either Republican all the way, or democrat all the way.

Except it's not going to be about values, it's going to be about hate -- or more specifically, disgust. Each side is banking on the other's supporters being thoroughly disgusted with their respective Congresscritters.

The Right expects the Democratic Congressmen to face backlash for the impeachment -- or for the very least, for failing at it. The Left expects the Republican Senators to be held accountable for what they did to themselves to defend Their Great Leader -- do they represent the people, the Party, or Donald?

Personally, I think we're going to see a lot more of the latter.

Look at the 2018 midterms: Donald was out there stumping for his loyal supporting Congressmen, still riding high on a good economy, in a midterm where the GOP had the House (which they decisively lost), and where 26 of the 35 Senate seats up for election were the Dems to lose... but in the end, the GOP only gained 2 seats.

Not only that, but the Dems gained 7 gubernatorial seats. Not only that, but some of the GOP victories were close races in districts so traditionally red they should have been no-brainers.

Were those elections based on values, or on disgust?

The Nevertrumpers are often dismissively called "haters," and I'm not one to argue it... but haters vote. If that's what 2018 looked like, what do you think will happen in 2020?

What you call a "hatred of the alternative" can happen for House and Senate candidates as well. The 2 parties are very polarized and each side is fully entrenched far apart from the other, and the dem or Rep candidates are pretty much in line with whatever the upcoming presidential nominees are going to be.

Ah, but it's not the candidates that are disgusted, it's the voters. What do you do when you're so disgusted with your own candidate's behavior that you can barely stand holding your nose and voting for him, but at the same time, you're not about to change parties?

Answer: You choose "none of the above," and skip the whole thing.

I'm betting that more Republicans will do that in November than Democrats... as I said, Donald is protected; his minions are not.

 

[LostMarbels]

Your video doesn't work.

And the connections between the whistleblower and Schiff are irrelevant. The whistleblower could be Schiff's twin brother and it still wouldn't matter. This is just a weak, simple-minded red herring.

Why is it the Democrats get to define all aspects of any topic using a sliding scale to their own benefit,

Determine what is true or false for all of society, demand only what they have determined will be discussed is discussed

and completely ban the discussion of any topic they have determined false... which completely renders any facts contrary to their position unusable?

They get to ban and censor the speech of anyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

[Aldebaran]

Except it's not going to be about values, it's going to be about hate -- or more specifically, disgust. Each side is banking on the other's supporters being thoroughly disgusted with their respective Congresscritters.

The Right expects the Democratic Congressmen to face backlash for the impeachment -- or for the very least, for failing at it. The Left expects the Republican Senators to be held accountable for what they did to themselves to defend Their Great Leader -- do they represent the people, the Party, or Donald?

Personally, I think we're going to see a lot more of the latter.

We may have seen that in Virginia when democrats took total control and are now pushing one gun control scheme after another with no end in sight: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e67e54-4386-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html

I highly doubt Republicans will be staying home on election day in 2020. Yeah, I know it's not a state election, but they'll still be more eager to have their voices heard when they vote for president. They know what the stakes are at the state level. They won't want to lose at the federal level.

Look at the 2018 midterms: Donald was out there stumping for his loyal supporting Congressmen, still riding high on a good economy, in a midterm where the GOP had the House (which they decisively lost), and where 26 of the 35 Senate seats up for election were the Dems to lose... but in the end, the GOP only gained 2 seats.

Not only that, but the Dems gained 7 gubernatorial seats. Not only that, but some of the GOP victories were close races in districts so traditionally red they should have been no-brainers.

Were those elections based on values, or on disgust?

It could have been the result of being complacent. Wasn't that why Clinton lost against Trump in 2016?

Ah, but it's not the candidates that are disgusted, it's the voters. What do you do when you're so disgusted with your own candidate's behavior that you can barely stand holding your nose and voting for him, but at the same time, you're not about to change parties?

Answer: You choose "none of the above," and skip the whole thing.

Or you simply vote in the direction that most closely reflects your own political values. Checking the box next to the name of a candidate really isn't that hard.

I'm betting that more Republicans will do that in November than Democrats... as I said, Donald is protected; his minions are not.

What is he protected by that his "minions" aren't? The Republican voters who want to keep Trump saw what the dem-controlled house did (impeach Trump), and they're seeing what the Republican controlled Senate is doing (not removing Trump). I think Republicans are going to realize how important it is to keep our people in power. Will democrats turn out in larger numbers out of anger of Trump still being in office. Time will tell.

 

[KCfromNC]

At the same time, the impeachment process could very well be said to be a distraction from an impending investigation of the Bidens. After all, didn't Trump try to have the Bidens investigated?

No. The testimony that we have indicates that Donald was after an announcement of an investigation. And he later gave up on that.

 

[KCfromNC]

If that's your response to the idea of a person being able to face his accuser in court then you're also attempting to make the case that the accused himself shouldn't even be mounting a defense since he's assumed innocent anyway.

I am? Where did I write that? Sounds like a "fixed it for you" post to me, given that I said nothing of the sort.

Anyway, of course people are presumed innocent. But that's before there's there's hours of testimony showing the opposite, as happened during the House hearings. So it really has nothing to do with the facts in this case, and does nothing to address what I actually did write.

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong!
Murkowski to vote 'no' on witnesses, dashing Democrats' hopes of extending trial

Alexander to vote 'no' on witnesses, bringing trial close to end

The GOP ignoring the will of voters says little about how much pressure there is on them to do so : Support for witnesses in Senate trial at 75 percent: poll

The will of the people will be heard in November of 2020 just as it was in November of 2016.

And 2018, of course.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. The testimony that we have indicates that Donald was after an announcement of an investigation. And he later gave up on that.

And now the possible corruption from the Bidens will probably never be fully investigated. They've had plenty of time now to try burying any evidence.

 

[Aldebaran]

I am? Where did I write that? Sounds like a "fixed it for you" post to me, given that I said nothing of the sort.

I'm not required to repeat what you write. I simply respond to it.

Anyway, of course people are presumed innocent. But that's before there's there's hours of testimony showing the opposite, as happened during the House hearings. So it really has nothing to do with the facts in this case, and does nothing to address what I actually did write.

The accusing side is always going to make it look like the accused did something wrong because they're the first ones to speak and present a case. Trump didn't really get a chance to mount a defense in the House. The articles of impeachment were put together by one side. That's why they've fallen to pieces in the Senate, and that's why the democrats want to try putting them back together by bringing in more witnesses (not going to happen).

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not required to repeat what you write. I simply respond to it.

Yeah, didn't expect you could show I wrote what you claimed I did.

The accusing side is always going to make it look like the accused did something wrong because they're the first ones to speak and present a case. Trump didn't really get a chance to mount a defense in the House.

That's false. He was even offered a chance to come in and testify himself and clear it all up. He refused, and prohibited his employees from doing the same. He has no one to blame but himself for this.

 

[Aldebaran]

The GOP ignoring the will of voters says little about how much pressure there is on them to do so : Support for witnesses in Senate trial at 75 percent: poll

The voters are apparently saying different things: Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment

 

[SimplyMe]

Unfortunately the DOJ can't really do anything outside this country. They can request, but they have no authority to investigate things that happened outside their jurisdiction without the countries cooperation.

And the Dems have no case other than opinions, supposition and presumptions. What person testified that they had first hand knowledge that it was personal and political in nature? What did the president say to them to show that?

You only had one guy who had one on one with the president and the president told him directly he wanted nothing from Ukraine.

And in the case of the Biden's and Ukraine, this is false. The DoJ could have started a case against the Bidens at any time, and we have a treaty with Ukraine to be able to investigate there, with the help of their Ministry of Justice. Nothing has been stopping the DoJ from investigating the Bidens but, instead, the President never even talked to Barr about investigating the Bidens -- despite mentioning Barr on the call.

 

[KCfromNC]

And now the possible corruption from the Bidens will probably never be fully investigated. They've had plenty of time now to try burying any evidence.

Given the alleged "corruption" happened half a decade ago or more, a few months delay - even if were anything more than imaginary - doesn't seem that significant.

But hey, if Donald just want to give up before even trying, that's on him. Low energy, sad, all that.

 

[SimplyMe]

The voters are apparently saying different things: Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment

How odd, in what may be the most Republican state in the US, a Senator lost support for not toeing the party line.