- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Please tell me why some Republicans on here are against witnesses being called?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:58 pm to 225bred
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:58 pm to 225bred
quote:
Please tell me why some Republicans on here are against witnesses being called?
Republicans do not support it because this whole thing is a bullshite clown show and the President is not going to be removed from office so why should the clown show be dragged on?
I support calling witnesses as long as they are no limits on the witnesses that can be called and the witnesses are relevant to the articles of impeachment. If it's going to be limited to just witnesses that House managers want or if the witnesses are not relevant then I do not support it. However, that is just my personal opinion.
0
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:59 pm to texashorn
There is a reason for this.
If the quid pro quo were based in America's interest it is perfectly fine.
If the quid pro quo were based in Trump's political interest it is questionable.
Who is capable of reading Trump's mind?
This certainly falls in the category of reasonable doubt.
If the quid pro quo were based in America's interest it is perfectly fine.
If the quid pro quo were based in Trump's political interest it is questionable.
Who is capable of reading Trump's mind?
This certainly falls in the category of reasonable doubt.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:59 pm to Janky
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:59 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
It's become political, no doubt. I'm not sure that's how it was intended to be, though.
If this was a legal process the case would be dismissed.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:00 pm to texashorn
quote:
Notice how Trump’s lawyers ALWAYS couch any quid pro quo comment with “even if it were true”?
I damn sure do.
Probably because the foundation of the dems entire argument is based on their assumptions of what Trump's intentions were. Its a breathtakingly weak case that fails even if their assumption are correct. I'd argue the same thing if I were them.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:00 pm to texashorn
Gee man hard hitting, I like the part you posted from the link it really hit it out of the park! 
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:00 pm to texashorn
You leftists like OSU fans saying LSU was lucky to not have to face them in the title game, otherwise it would have been different.
If OSU wanted to face the champ, don't frick up the play-in game. And just because LSU and the rest of the country thinks it's absurd to play OSU after the fact, it doesn't mean we don't all know LSU would beat them soundly.
If OSU wanted to face the champ, don't frick up the play-in game. And just because LSU and the rest of the country thinks it's absurd to play OSU after the fact, it doesn't mean we don't all know LSU would beat them soundly.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:01 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
At least you seem to be admitting there was quid pro quo.
I don’t think Trump should be removed, but I am concerned about his constant, Nixonian pattern of lying.
I don’t think Trump should be removed, but I am concerned about his constant, Nixonian pattern of lying.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:01 pm to texashorn
quote:
Mick Mulvaney defies subpoena to testify in impeachment inquiry
Because that subpoena was from a House Committee that was not given the authority to issue subpoenas via a House vote. They had no authority to issue the subpoena.
This has been covered many, many times.
And on top of this, even if they did correctly authorize the committee to issue a subpoena, and he refused, why not take it to the Judiciary, as is appropriate?
This post was edited on 1/28/20 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:01 pm to GRTiger
I’m not a leftist, you idiot.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:02 pm to texashorn
I'm saying if there was a quid pro quo. Again reasonable doubt.
The House case rests on a lot of assumptions.
The House case rests on a lot of assumptions.
This post was edited on 1/28/20 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:02 pm to texashorn
quote:
I’m not a leftist, you idiot.
Oh, cot damn not another one of these.
BTW, MM can claim immunity and Schiff could have gone after him in court. He didn't because the subpoenas were actually strongly worded letters.
This post was edited on 1/28/20 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:04 pm to Centinel
Yeah, that’s a very convenient argument. I do know that was the case.
I’d be happy to testify to clear a President’s name.
I’d be happy to testify to clear a President’s name.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:06 pm to texashorn
quote:
Yeah, that’s a very convenient argument. I do know that was the case.
So if it was so important for Schiff to get those witnesses, why did he not do so through proper channels?
Why is it so important he get them now?
quote:
I’d be happy to testify to clear a President’s name.
Clear what? There is zero evidence of Trump doing anything.
In this country it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not of the defendant to prove innocence.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:06 pm to texashorn
Oh that's right. You're an impartial ref. Just a moderate focused on calling block or charge, who just happens to sit on the end of the same team's bench every game. That's the game from you people's closet, right?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:06 pm to roadGator
quote:
To protect executive privilege and to keep this type of sham from ever happening again?
Sure. That's one reason and it sounds like a good one too. Still doesn't change the likelihood that firsthand witnesses, reinforcing the House's theory, would be damaging to the president.
Republicans that want to avoid that should want to avoid witnesses.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:06 pm to 225bred
Bc this is something the House should have done
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:08 pm to Centinel
Lawyering up and claiming immunity...OK.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:09 pm to texashorn
quote:
Lawyering up and claiming immunity...OK.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:09 pm to 9th life
The House should have done their job. If the parties were reversed your opinion would be 180 degrees different.
I know this because this is a political exercise. Perhaps this should be more than a political exercise going forward.
Perhaps one way is for the prosecution to put up a large bond. If they win they keep the money. If they lose it goes to the other party.
That would eliminate this one and would have eliminated Clinton’s.
This shite is stupid. You leftists are not going to be swayed because you hate trump and the right because we are in the way of whatever version of socialism you desire to get closer to.
I know this because this is a political exercise. Perhaps this should be more than a political exercise going forward.
Perhaps one way is for the prosecution to put up a large bond. If they win they keep the money. If they lose it goes to the other party.
That would eliminate this one and would have eliminated Clinton’s.
This shite is stupid. You leftists are not going to be swayed because you hate trump and the right because we are in the way of whatever version of socialism you desire to get closer to.
This post was edited on 1/28/20 at 1:11 pm
Page 4 of 11
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News