By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Dems - We want to hear from Bolton because that will certainly be enough proof to prove our case.

Reps - We want to hear from Hunter Biden then since he's partially the reason why we're here.

Dems - Hunter is useless to you and basically has nothing to do with any of this, so pick another.

Reps - Wait... so you get exactly what you need, and we end up looking like fools?...  Your move.

Dems - Nope. We care too much about your own integrity and we won't allow you to compromise it.

Reps - Ok then. Thank you oh so much for doing the right thing for us, and America, as per usual.

Dems - You're not welcome btw, jerks.

Reps - It's settled then. No witnesses.

The sad part is, you pretty much nailed it but don't seem to realize that...

No matter how you cut it, the verdict has been tainted. The fix is in.

I dunno, it all seems pretty broke to me.

The Reps swords may be dulled, but the Dems are now down to throwing sticks and stones, when they really need cannons.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Maybe because they would be following orders from Putin, which the Dems and MSM would be sure to point out? When you look at something like the FBI, with Comey and the Hillary investigations and how they were handled, and the Russia/Steele dossier, etc, clearly either the systems themselves, or the people inside them, suck. Maybe both.

And sending Giuliani to operate illegally is so much better.

Is he getting investigated or charged? Would he likely be found guilty?



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

The sad part is, you pretty much nailed it but don't seem to realize that...

No matter how you cut it, the verdict has been tainted. The fix is in.

I dunno, it all seems pretty broke to me.

The Reps swords may be dulled, but the Dems are now down to throwing sticks and stones, when they really need cannons.

Your analogy is lost on me.

That said, I have to add, if the Republicans actually cared to hear from Hunter Biden, they didn't need any Democratic support. The fact that he was not called showed that he never truly mattered, or at least that the Republicans didn't care about justice or the process, they just wanted to put a lid on it. Their primary objective from day one was a coverup. If they couldn't have that, they would have a circus. The trial was a farce.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Is he getting investigated or charged? Would he likely be found guilty?

Giuliani?  He has not been charged yet given we have the current situation to deal with.  And it's likely Trump will be charged as a co-conspirator given that it was him that ordered or cooperated with him. 

And in case you are wonder, the crime is operating as a government agent without proper documentation, procedures and vetting. It's illegal to represent the US government in a foreign country unless you are registered to do so.

I know what they say he did wrong. Excuse me for finding it beyond hard to believe that a well known person like Giuliana, a lawyer, who's in the public eye and a giant target for the Dems and MSM, went and did something clearly illegal, and brags about it on national TV.

Usually suicidal people don't go around, especially on social media, bragging that they're going to off themselves or go kamikaze.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

I dunno, it all seems pretty broke to me.

The Reps swords may be dulled, but the Dems are now down to throwing sticks and stones, when they really need cannons.

Your analogy is lost on me.

That said, I have to add, if the Republicans actually cared to hear from Hunter Biden, they didn't need any Democratic support. The fact that he was not called showed that he never truly mattered, or at least that the Republicans didn't care about justice or the process, they just wanted to put a lid on it. Their primary objective from day one was a coverup. If they couldn't have that, they would have a circus. The trial was a farce.

The Reps could have done whatever they want for the most part, sure. Trump could more often as well. The problem is that anytime they do anything, it's going to get used against them in some way. They can't help but spend time figuring out what's worth the negative press and what's not. No different than the Dems. 

Bolton obviously wasn't all that important either then. If he was the key to impeaching Trump for good, then why did the Dems just back off and let America down, just so Biden didn't have to waste his time for no reason in the Senate? 'Orange Hitler' is now going to 'cripple' America because of this, and the Dems could have stopped it. Why didn't they? Hunter is more important than the rest of America and those she helps and protects worldwide?

Hunter wasn't called because nobody else needed to be called. When you set up a case, you get all your ducks in a row, and so does the defense. You then exchange info and build your case against them. Then you go to trial. The trial covers this and only this. There is no new evidence or testimony that get's brought in out of nowhere, other than in extremely rare circumstances. If the Dems required Bolton, etc, to testify to make their case, they needed to do it prior to impeaching Trump. Since they were able to convince enough people in the House based on the evidence they had to impeach Trump, then more evidence obviously wasn't very important beyond that, otherwise they would have fought for it, instead of just pointing fingers at the Senate. It's not the Senates job to build the House's case for them, it's their job to analyze it and come to a conclusion.

The Dems and MSM are certainly doing a bang up job of covering up then.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Dems - We want to hear from Bolton because that will certainly be enough proof to prove our case.

Reps - We want to hear from Hunter Biden then since he's partially the reason why we're here.

Dems - Hunter is useless to you and basically has nothing to do with any of this, so pick another.

Reps - Wait... so you get exactly what you need, and we end up looking like fools?...  Your move.

Dems - Nope. We care too much about your own integrity and we won't allow you to compromise it.

Reps - Ok then. Thank you oh so much for doing the right thing for us, and America, as per usual.

Dems - You're not welcome btw, jerks.

Reps - It's settled then. No witnesses.

Spot on.  

Republicans don't care about their own integrity.  Party over country.  Including breaking the law to benefit their own side.  

Not sure if you didn't get the joke, or if you're spinning/flipping it. Does it matter?

the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

I know what they say he did wrong. Excuse me for finding it beyond hard to believe that a well known person like Giuliana, a lawyer, who's in the public eye and a giant target for the Dems and MSM, went and did something clearly illegal, and brags about it on national TV.

Usually suicidal people don't go around, especially on social media, bragging that they're going to off themselves or go kamikaze.

Ah yes, because if someone goes on national TV and says "I'm a murderer" and shows a film of them doing it, they must actually be innocent, because no reasonable person would admit something like that.  

Let's see the clips. I hope they can all fit in this thread.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

I know what they say he did wrong. Excuse me for finding it beyond hard to believe that a well known person like Giuliana, a lawyer, who's in the public eye and a giant target for the Dems and MSM, went and did something clearly illegal, and brags about it on national TV.

Usually suicidal people don't go around, especially on social media, bragging that they're going to off themselves or go kamikaze.

Have you watched any videos of him in the past year?  He's a bit unhinged.  Even Fox News has tried to stop him because he would start spouting non-sense on live TV. 

This was just a few days ago.  Audio is silent for the first few seconds.  Listen to him slurring his speech.  He's not a well person.

Giuliani and Biden seem like a match made in heaven don't you think?

You don't send a regular assassin to kill the boogeyman, you send Baba Yaga.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Your analogy is lost on me.

That said, I have to add, if the Republicans actually cared to hear from Hunter Biden, they didn't need any Democratic support. The fact that he was not called showed that he never truly mattered, or at least that the Republicans didn't care about justice or the process, they just wanted to put a lid on it. Their primary objective from day one was a coverup. If they couldn't have that, they would have a circus. The trial was a farce.

The Reps could have done whatever they want for the most part, sure. Trump could more often as well. The problem is that anytime they do anything, it's going to get used against them in some way. They can't help but spend time figuring out what's worth the negative press and what's not. No different than the Dems. 

Bolton obviously wasn't all that important either then. If he was the key to impeaching Trump for good, then why did the Dems just back off and let America down, just so Biden didn't have to waste his time for no reason in the Senate? 'Orange Hitler' is now going to 'cripple' America because of this, and the Dems could have stopped it. Why didn't they? Hunter is more important than the rest of America and those she helps and protects worldwide?

Hunter wasn't called because nobody else needed to be called. When you set up a case, you get all your ducks in a row, and so does the defense. You then exchange info and build your case against them. Then you go to trial. The trial covers this and only this. There is no new evidence or testimony that get's brought in out of nowhere, other than in extremely rare circumstances. If the Dems required Bolton, etc, to testify to make their case, they needed to do it prior to impeaching Trump. Since they were able to convince enough people in the House based on the evidence they had to impeach Trump, then more evidence obviously wasn't very important beyond that, otherwise they would have fought for it, instead of just pointing fingers at the Senate. It's not the Senates job to build the House's case for them, it's their job to analyze it and come to a conclusion.

The Dems and MSM are certainly doing a bang up job of covering up then.

First of all, press shouldn't be a prime concern. I was listening to some tapes from the Nixon impeachment where Republicans (his own party) were speaking about how they would follow every lead, no matter where it led them or how politically damaging it was. That was because justice and county stood ahead of party. This lack of sorted priorities is exactly the thing that I am lambasting the modern Republican party for, so it hardly serves as a defense.

As for whether Bolton was important, you have to look at Trump's defense. Repeatedly, his lawyers and Republicans stated that no witness could state that Trump directly tied military aid to the investigations. Why? Why would they say that repeatedly if it wasn't important? That may be a trick question, because that fact is of fairly self evident importance, both to the outcome of the trial and to the understanding of the American people of the actions of our President.

Now, lets speak briefly about Hunter Biden. You say that the Democrats backed off and "could have stopped it". I call bullshit. Let us quickly check the vote counts for witnesses, and, yup, 100% of Democrats voted in favor of witnesses. However, even if this was a sticking point, it doesn't matter. A court should not accept an injustice, and calling Hunter Biden and turning the court into a circus would be an injustice. He did not have anything to contribute and as such, he should not have been called. The same does not ring true for Bolton.

You also speak about the trial. Again, I'd like to call bullshit. In every impeachment trial in the senate, witnesses have been called. Often, these were new witnesses. There is no necessity to call 100% of witnesses before the case enters the Senate. This is completely made up and does not fit within any historical precedent. This is nonsense and does not hold any water under the slightest of scrutiny. It is shameful that this was used so frequently throughout the trial and it shows how little those involved actually care, when they are pulling out these bullshit excuses.



sundin13 said:

First of all, press shouldn't be a prime concern. I was listening to some tapes from the Nixon impeachment where Republicans (his own party) were speaking about how they would follow every lead, no matter where it led them or how politically damaging it was. That was because justice and county stood ahead of party. This lack of sorted priorities is exactly the thing that I am lambasting the modern Republican party for, so it hardly serves as a defense.

As for whether Bolton was important, you have to look at Trump's defense. Repeatedly, his lawyers and Republicans stated that no witness could state that Trump directly tied military aid to the investigations. Why? Why would they say that repeatedly if it wasn't important? That may be a trick question, because that fact is of fairly self evident importance, both to the outcome of the trial and to the understanding of the American people of the actions of our President.

Now, lets speak briefly about Hunter Biden. You say that the Democrats backed off and "could have stopped it". I call bullshit. Let us quickly check the vote counts for witnesses, and, yup, 100% of Democrats voted in favor of witnesses. However, even if this was a sticking point, it doesn't matter. A court should not accept an injustice, and calling Hunter Biden and turning the court into a circus would be an injustice. He did not have anything to contribute and as such, he should not have been called. The same does not ring true for Bolton.

You also speak about the trial. Again, I'd like to call bullshit. In every impeachment trial in the senate, witnesses have been called. Often, these were new witnesses. There is no necessity to call 100% of witnesses before the case enters the Senate. This is completely made up and does not fit within any historical precedent. This is nonsense and does not hold any water under the slightest of scrutiny. It is shameful that this was used so frequently throughout the trial and it shows how little those involved actually care, when they are pulling out these bullshit excuses.

If you have two fairly evenly matched teams, and one team cheats, a lot, and wins most of the time because of it, if you refuse to bend and beat them at their own game, your team will eventually cease to exist. Who's the team at fault here?

Trump said something, so what? Just because Trump tells people to do something, they always listen and follow suit? Seriously? There's nobody who went against what Trump wanted, ever?

Then the Senate Dems need to blame the House Dems for not putting together a proper case, not the Senate Reps. As for Hunter. If you really want a Corvette, and you can afford a Corvette, and all I want in return for that car is a Pet Rock, you're going to give me a Pet Rock, because it's just a friggin Pet Rock. You're not going to refuse because 'it would make my dealership seem like a circus'. You'd get me a Pet Rock, and then tell everyone what an idiot I was for selling you a brand new Corvette for next to nothing. Instead, you (the Dems) walked away, and then told everyone, and they all think you're the idiot now. Who passes up a brand new (insert extreme want here) for not much more than free?

So the House did things the same way it's always been done?...



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

First of all, press shouldn't be a prime concern. I was listening to some tapes from the Nixon impeachment where Republicans (his own party) were speaking about how they would follow every lead, no matter where it led them or how politically damaging it was. That was because justice and county stood ahead of party. This lack of sorted priorities is exactly the thing that I am lambasting the modern Republican party for, so it hardly serves as a defense.

As for whether Bolton was important, you have to look at Trump's defense. Repeatedly, his lawyers and Republicans stated that no witness could state that Trump directly tied military aid to the investigations. Why? Why would they say that repeatedly if it wasn't important? That may be a trick question, because that fact is of fairly self evident importance, both to the outcome of the trial and to the understanding of the American people of the actions of our President.

Now, lets speak briefly about Hunter Biden. You say that the Democrats backed off and "could have stopped it". I call bullshit. Let us quickly check the vote counts for witnesses, and, yup, 100% of Democrats voted in favor of witnesses. However, even if this was a sticking point, it doesn't matter. A court should not accept an injustice, and calling Hunter Biden and turning the court into a circus would be an injustice. He did not have anything to contribute and as such, he should not have been called. The same does not ring true for Bolton.

You also speak about the trial. Again, I'd like to call bullshit. In every impeachment trial in the senate, witnesses have been called. Often, these were new witnesses. There is no necessity to call 100% of witnesses before the case enters the Senate. This is completely made up and does not fit within any historical precedent. This is nonsense and does not hold any water under the slightest of scrutiny. It is shameful that this was used so frequently throughout the trial and it shows how little those involved actually care, when they are pulling out these bullshit excuses.

If you have two fairly evenly matched teams, and one team cheats, a lot, and wins most of the time because of it, if you refuse to bend and beat them at their own game, your team will eventually cease to exist. Who's the team at fault here?

Trump said something, so what? Just because Trump tells people to do something, they always listen and follow suit? Seriously? There's nobody who went against what Trump wanted, ever?

Then the Senate Dems need to blame the House Dems for not putting together a proper case, not the Senate Reps. As for Hunter. If you really want a Corvette, and you can afford a Corvette, and all I want in return for that car is a Pet Rock, you're going to give me a Pet Rock, because it's just a friggin Pet Rock. You're not going to refuse because 'it would make my dealership seem like a circus'. You'd get me a Pet Rock, and then tell everyone what an idiot I was for selling you a brand new Corvette for next to nothing. Instead, you (the Dems) walked away, and then told everyone, and they all think you're the idiot now. Who passes up a brand new (insert extreme want here) for not much more than free?

So the House did things the same way it's always been done?...

I am not sure what you are getting at with your first point.

As for your second, it has kind of reached the pinnacle of Trumpian excuses: Yes he did it, but who cares? The President issuing an improper order is improper whether that order is followed or not. It cannot be blamed on anyone but him.

To your third, this is simply nonsense. Not just because you seem to still be clinging onto some idea that witnesses don't have a place in the senate (which is nonsense) but because you then proceed into some utterly nonsensical ramblings that have no logical or argumentative value.