- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:18 pm to 225bred
The Democrats had ample opportunity to call their witnesses during their charade in the House. Schiff did not give the same opportunity to Republican members of the House committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry. That's why I'm against Senate Democrats being able to call witnesses. If it was fair for House Democrats to block Republicans from calling witnesses for the past 2 months, its fair for Senate Republicans to return the favor. I do hope Hunter Biden gets called though.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:18 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Continuing forward with witnesses or not will not change a single vote.
Correct. I think the pussy Republicans want to use witnesses as cover for their vote. It won’t be changed because there’s no impeachable offense.
But for that reason, there’s no reason to hear witnesses.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:19 pm to roadGator
quote:
The House should have done their job.
Okay. i fired up the delorean, got doc brown and filled up mr fusion. the house does their job, got their subpoenas and witnesses were called.
is the impeachment vote different?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:20 pm to 9th life
quote:No the Dems would still vote in lock step for the turd they delivered.
is the impeachment vote different?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:20 pm to 225bred
Innocent until proven guilty theory.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:20 pm to texashorn
quote:
The subpoenas were ignored or disputed.
Ummm...maybe that's why they don't want to bother calling "witnesses"?
*only people with first hand knowledge can be considered witnesses. Even with that, personal opinion comes into play. Someone who "heard things" or repeats what someone else says happened are not witnesses.
Just sayin'*
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:21 pm to 9th life
Just like the removal vote won't be any different with witnesses or not.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:21 pm to 9th life
quote:
Okay. i fired up the delorean, got doc brown and filled up mr fusion. the house does their job, got their subpoenas and witnesses were called.
is the impeachment vote different?
If there was factual material evidence to support the charges, yes?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:21 pm to 9th life
quote:
is the impeachment vote different?
Yeah. Fewer Democrats would’ve voted for it if more witnesses were called.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:22 pm to texashorn
quote:
Put Mulvaney and Bolton under oath and let’s hear their side.
Fishing expedition?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:25 pm to the808bass
quote:
Do you think that innocent until proven guilty is an arbitrary procedure or that it is rooted in some deeper concept?
I’m aware of the historical nature of the concept, Alan, but the Senate is free to ignore it in a purely political proceeding.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:26 pm to texashorn
quote:Why would they, to fuel your wet dream?
I’m aware of the historical nature of the concept, Alan, but the Senate is free to ignore it in a purely political proceeding.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:26 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Does a district attorney have to have their entire case put together when he goes before a grand jury?
Strawman.
No a DA doesn't have to...but you're leaving something out aren't you?? In order to get to the point of a grand jury, someone other than someone on the DAs team has to decide the case has merit enough to move to a Grand Jury.
Don't you agree?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:27 pm to texashorn
quote:
Notice how Trump’s lawyers ALWAYS couch any quid pro quo comment with “even if it were true”?
????
What do the voices in your head tell you the significance of that is?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:29 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. Fewer Democrats would’ve voted for it if more witnesses were called.
If that was the case, then it seems counterproductive for Trump's counsel to have been fighting it at the House level.
I guess the thinking was better to be impeached and have it appear partisan?
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:29 pm to texashorn
quote:
I’m aware of the historical nature of the concept, Alan, but the Senate is free to ignore it in a purely political proceeding.
It is a political process. That doesn’t mean that 1) it should be purely political or 2) that it was intended to be purely political.
You’re making a shitty argument that’s too clever by half. Move to something else.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:29 pm to Jbird
Why are you asking me this? I am not a U.S. Senator.
It’s pretty well accepted at this point that Trump engaged in quid pro quo.
I’m furious at the lying by the President and his shills.
It’s pretty well accepted at this point that Trump engaged in quid pro quo.
I’m furious at the lying by the President and his shills.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:30 pm to texashorn
quote:Um cuz it's a poliboard?
Why are you asking me this? I am not a U.S. Senator.
quote:By who?
It’s pretty well accepted at this point that Trump engaged in quid pro quo.
quote:Just this President?
I’m furious at the lying by the President and his shills.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
That doesn’t mean that 1) it should be purely political or 2) that it was intended to be purely political.
shite in one hand, wish in the other, see which one fills up first.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News