Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s not the Senate’s job to basically be the Democrats election campaign
I totally agree with that, however, it is the Senate's job to conduct a fair trial and honor their oath of impartiality. Anything less, is a cover up. Let Boltin be subpoenaed. Let the documents surface, better yet. Take the phone call off of the super secret classified server and let it be heard. Congress is not asking for the Senate to do their work. They are asking them to do their job and be thorough and fair about it. If new information surfaces after the impeachment vote in the house, is the Senate supposed to ignore it? I don't think so, nor does 70% of we the people, Republican's included.
Look, you can want to believe that Trump is perfect, but he's not. You can want to believe that he did nothing wrong and obstruction of a co-equal branch is fine, but it isn't. The only way to make an honest, informed decision is for everything, and I do mean everything to come out of the shadows and into the light of day. The Senate must do their job without trying to cover up the information.
No, it's a load of FACTS that the dumb Dems forgot to consider!
Thought exercise: Hillary Clinton is currently President and is under investigation for corruption. In April 2019, months before a Ukraine scandal comes to light, Clinton stands on the White House lawn and says, "We're fighting all the subpoenas" in an unrelated probe that is not part of a formal impeachment investigation. Clinton's lawyers explain that they're not invoking immunity or privilege, they're simply fighting "congressional harassment" (see https://www.chicagotribune.com/natio...424-story.html).
The Republican-led House later learns about an issue involving Ukraine aid and issues subpoenas. Clinton now says she's instructed the entire executive branch not to cooperate because the House didn't take a vote before starting an impeachment inquiry. After the House takes the vote to legitimize the impeachment inquiry, Clinton says she still not going to cooperate.
Do you give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and defend her legal prerogative to resist the "invalid" subpoenas? Or do you think back to Clinton's April 2019 promise to stonewall any and all Congressional subpoenas, and decide that the latest excuse is just another pretext to avoid turning over damaging information?
What does this have to do with the topic of evidence presented at a trial?
If this is an attempt at diversion?
If so, ask for better material.
No need to divert from something no one is paying attention to
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
