But enough for him not to get re-elected?.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
But enough for him not to get re-elected?.
esmith
Veteran Member
No, it proves that the Biden's are suspected of shady dealings.
It seems to me there's more than one guilty person in this by association.
So Trump tried to prove that by leaning on Ukraine?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Trump is guilty of what? Our P.O.T.U.S. took action in order to ensure U.S. foreign aid didn't get misappropriated; there's nothing criminal about wanting an investigation of how U.S. taxpayer dollars end up getting spent. .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They understand how that honest Republican politicians are all but nonexistent. This hopefully educated at least a small percentage of Trump suporters.
SoyLeche
meh...
Not much chance of that. It might have given some push to people on the fence or that would have stayed home on election day though.
Then to prove no guilt why no witnesses?.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is not what he did.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
In the American justice system, an accused person's guilt must be proven rather than an accused person's innocence needs to be proven!
SoyLeche
meh...
Impeachment isn't a criminal trial. It's a political process. Always has been and always will be. As it should be.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The testimony in the House was enough, but the Republicans claimed that was not enough and at the same time denied witnesses for the Senate trial. Blatant hypocrisy.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Yes. It was an utter waste of time.
With Nixon...which was bipartisan and he may or may not have been convicted (he definitely would have been impeached) it wasn't a waste of time, and I can only honor him for resigning before he put us through all that. With Clinton, which was also not an entire waste of time because there WAS some bipartisan action...(as a die hard conservative, for instance, I would have voted for acquittal even though he absolutely was guilty as charged of real crimes....for which he was punished elsewhere). Johnson's impeachment was more partisan than not; it might have been a waste of time...
but this one? Purest partisan. Everything about it was about Democrats wanting to reverse the previous election and to mess with the next one. They knew very well that the only thing calling witnesses would do is get them more time to spin. There was NO chance whatsoever that witnesses would have changed the vote, and they knew it going in. That's not why they wanted witnesses; more time to bloviate.
I would have liked to see witnesses, personally...EXCEPT for the obvious reason the Dems wanted them. As it is, better that we cut the process short and just get on with stuff.
If you really want Trump out of office, y'all have nine months. Vote "agin" him.
Excuse my ignorance of impeachment but if your not guilty as charged the witnesses shouldn't be a problem unless you are guilty.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes and hopefully the Republicans will pay a price for this.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Exactly.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
We'll see....
And the point is, we WILL see. The American PEOPLE get to make the decision now, as it should be.
SoyLeche
meh...
I'm afraid that the memory of voters is too short.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
But...but...but...we paid for this debacle...(and they never said such a thing as you stated).