Witnesses coming to Senate trial

[dianaiad]

You have it backwards. What did the House do that was underhanded? And I see that you drank the Kool Aid. Can you tell me what the Republicans did that was illegal that got them turned away?

What could they have done illegally that got them turned away, when the claim was that they were invited to participate at any time?

On the other hand, if the subpoenas were not legal, then Trump would have been an idiot to comply with them, and so the DOJ TOLD him. One does not establish precedents like that.


Or.....as a class I recently took was very clear about (and it was taught by both defense attorneys, prosecutors and police) DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. EVER. Do what your lawyer tells you. Always. Protect your rights. ALL the time, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent and 'have nothing to hide,' because the other side will find something, whether you are hiding it or not, whether it exists or not. Read articles four, five and six of the Bill of Rights, which the Dems have utterly ignored in this case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you listen at all to the proceedings? I did. Snoreworthy as that first week was, I did. The House was the one that pulled all the illegal and underhanded stuff, not Trump.

Schiff said last night that the Republicans were invited, and were free, to attend and call witnesses to all the proceedings, and that was patently a lie. Did you see the coverage of the time a group of Republican House members attempted to attend a meeting...and were turned away at the door?

I did.

Not to mention that month or so Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment. Trump didn't do that, Pelosi did.

How many times do you need to be corrected on these claims???

Republicans WERE in those "secret" meetings. They DID ask questions. You can read the published transcripts to see for yourself. I provided one for you last week, but strangely, you had nothing to say about it.

Many of the Republicans in that mob that put on that big show of storming the proceedings, were members of the committees involved in the proceedings and were therefore already invited to be present. That was all a big show which seems to have done it's job of convincing people of a lie. You bought it.

The House didn't do anything illegal.

Please stop repeating these erroneous claims.


You know how I know you're a Fox News viewer (Well, one reason at least). Because you're parroting their talking points about it all just being soooo boring. Well boo hoo, God forbid you'd have to listen to people making detailed arguments on such an important matter. I guess fact-finding is boring to some people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What could they have done illegally that got them turned away, when the claim was that they were invited to participate at any time?

On the other hand, if the subpoenas were not legal, then Trump would have been an idiot to comply with them, and so the DOJ TOLD him. One does not establish precedents like that.


Or.....as a class I recently took was very clear about (and it was taught by both defense attorneys, prosecutors and police) DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. EVER. Do what your lawyer tells you. Always. Protect your rights. ALL the time, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent and 'have nothing to hide,' because the other side will find something, whether you are hiding it or not, whether it exists or not. Read articles four, five and six of the Bill of Rights, which the Dems have utterly ignored in this case.

So you have not been following this as you claimed. If you had you would have known how the Republicans were breaking the laws and rules that they agreed to:

Republicans had been invited to the meeting that you are talking about. It took a while to find but this article explains how the Republicans broke the law and why they were turned away:

Trump impeachment: GOP lawmakers who have access to inquiry

"Their entrance into the secure room outraged Democrats, who accused Republicans of breaking House rules and also breaching House security by bringing their electronics inside.

House rules prevent members from other committees from taking part in the proceedings of another committee. "

There were already some Republicans there. Other Republicans wanted to break the rules.

"Republicans claim they have not been able to access relevant documents and testimony from the impeachment hearings, but Democrats disagree and say Republicans have not shown up for the depositions. "

I know that you try to be honest. Why on Earth would you support Donald Trump as a Christian? That simply makes no sense to me. He is a self serving egomaniac. He goes against all Christian principals.

 

[dianaiad]

So you have not been following this as you claimed. If you had you would have known how the Republicans were breaking the laws and rules that they agreed to:

Republicans had been invited to the meeting that you are talking about. It took a while to find but this article explains how the Republicans broke the law and why they were turned away:

Trump impeachment: GOP lawmakers who have access to inquiry

"Their entrance into the secure room outraged Democrats, who accused Republicans of breaking House rules and also breaching House security by bringing their electronics inside.

House rules prevent members from other committees from taking part in the proceedings of another committee. "

There were already some Republicans there. Other Republicans wanted to break the rules.

"Republicans claim they have not been able to access relevant documents and testimony from the impeachment hearings, but Democrats disagree and say Republicans have not shown up for the depositions. "

I know that you try to be honest. Why on Earth would you support Donald Trump as a Christian? That simply makes no sense to me. He is a self serving egomaniac. He goes against all Christian principals.

There is no way we will agree on the political situation; it's far too subjective and, er, political.

I would, however, like to address your last question.

Why do I support Trump? First, I think he's doing a pretty good job as POTUS; better than Obama did, frankly, and MUCH better than Clinton did, and I only have a few beefs with Clinton, politically. Admittedly, they are BIG beefs.... Second, I don't much like Trump as a person. Let's put it this way; in terms of who I'd rather have living next door, Sanders or Trump, I'd pick Sanders. Between Obama and Trump, I'd pick Obama. I think that I could be, personally, friendly with them, and I'd much rather they were next door than in the White House. I voted for him mostly as a vote AGAINST Hillary. It is possible that the Dems, or someone else, could come up with a candidate whose politics were more closely aligned with my own opinions than Trumps are, but nobody so far qualifies.

Finally and most importantly, I have a VERY firm belief in the separation of church and state. After all, I could ask you why you, as a Christian, would support, say, Clinton or Biden? Government and religion should be utterly separate; they should leave each other entirely alone. Which means, of course, that I support politicians on the grounds of what my perception of them is POLITICALLY. I don't give a hoot what they might believe in religiously. I wouldn't have any problems at all voting for an atheist or a Muslim or a Hindu or even an evangelical, if they don't bring their religious beliefs into the mix. I mean, really....if I thought about religion first, I'd have supported Harry Reid. He belongs to the same religion I do, after all, but his politics were utterly cringe worthy. He drove me utterly nuts.

If SOMEONE would come up with a candidate who agreed with me politically AND had a 'good character," I'd vote for him/her no matter what party s/he represented. However, I haven't seen anybody.

 

[sun rise]

Finally and most importantly, I have a VERY firm belief in the separation of church and state.

As do I. And on the policy level, Trump is mixing them together by making various aspects of religious doctrine national policy. This includes money for religious schools, anti-LGBT measures, opposition to abortion and so forth.

So to me from that criteria you should be opposed to him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no way we will agree on the political situation; it's far too subjective and, er, political.

I would, however, like to address your last question.

Why do I support Trump? First, I think he's doing a pretty good job as POTUS; better than Obama did, frankly, and MUCH better than Clinton did, and I only have a few beefs with Clinton, politically. Admittedly, they are BIG beefs.... Second, I don't much like Trump as a person. Let's put it this way; in terms of who I'd rather have living next door, Sanders or Trump, I'd pick Sanders. Between Obama and Trump, I'd pick Obama. I think that I could be, personally, friendly with them, and I'd much rather they were next door than in the White House. I voted for him mostly as a vote AGAINST Hillary. It is possible that the Dems, or someone else, could come up with a candidate whose politics were more closely aligned with my own opinions than Trumps are, but nobody so far qualifies.

Finally and most importantly, I have a VERY firm belief in the separation of church and state. After all, I could ask you why you, as a Christian, would support, say, Clinton or Biden? Government and religion should be utterly separate; they should leave each other entirely alone. Which means, of course, that I support politicians on the grounds of what my perception of them is POLITICALLY. I don't give a hoot what they might believe in religiously. I wouldn't have any problems at all voting for an atheist or a Muslim or a Hindu or even an evangelical, if they don't bring their religious beliefs into the mix. I mean, really....if I thought about religion first, I'd have supported Harry Reid. He belongs to the same religion I do, after all, but his politics were utterly cringe worthy. He drove me utterly nuts.

If SOMEONE would come up with a candidate who agreed with me politically AND had a 'good character," I'd vote for him/her no matter what party s/he represented. However, I haven't seen anybody.

What makes you think that Trump is doing a better job than Obama? Obama was handed a terrible economy and he turned it around. All that Trump has done is to allow Obama's improvements continue. If anything economists are worried about his guidance since it looks as if he may let it go into another crash and burn cycle.

And I can understand a vote against Hillary, but in hindsight one should be able to admit that she was the lesser of two evils. I was lucky in my state. There was no doubt who would win in my state. In fact due to the ability to target political ads these days there were far fewer ads than in any other Presidential election that I have ever seen. Both candidates could see that spending money in my state was pointless. As a result I could vote without too much fear to a third candidate to register my displeasure.

But if you honestly look into your complaints against the Democrats in this impeachment and trial process you will see that they have no grounds. Do you realize that there already were some Republicans in the meeting that you complained about? Do you realize that some Republicans broke House rules, rules that both parties agreed to and formed, that limits the House meetings that members can go to? Do you realize that they broke the law by bringing personal electronics into what was supposed to be a secure area (that means no personal electronics, they can be hacked and politicians are far from experts in protecting their own security at times).

Admitting that you were wrong in at least this one area would go a long way to restoring your credibility.

 

[Shad]

Get your "game day" snacks ready, stock the fridge with drinks and invite your like-minded neighbors to a TV watching party.

McConnell Tells Caucus They Lack the Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses

He is also saying he will have the votes by Friday.

 

[SoyLeche]

Finally and most importantly, I have a VERY firm belief in the separation of church and state.

From what I've seen you seem to think this means a separation of morality and politics.

 

[dianaiad]

From what I've seen you seem to think this means a separation of morality and politics.

If one's morality is based upon his/her religious faith alone, then....yeah.

And if you don't think that politicians have very little connection with the morality they claim to abide by, well...

Have you ever read Machiavelli's "the Prince?"

To be quite honest, I don't consider anybody who runs for office on the state or federal level to be 'moral.' It's not possible. I can regret their actions, but I know what drives them: all of them.

It's power, and the need to keep their jobs. That's it.

 

[SoyLeche]

If one's morality is based upon his/her religious faith alone, then....yeah.

And if you don't think that politicians have very little connection with the morality they claim to abide by, well...

Have you ever read Machiavelli's "the Prince?"

To be quite honest, I don't consider anybody who runs for office on the state or federal level to be 'moral.' It's not possible. I can regret their actions, but I know what drives them: all of them.

It's power, and the need to keep their jobs. That's it.

I’m only partially talking about the politician’s morality - although I do tend to believe a lot of them do truly think they are working for the common good.

I’m more talking about you trying to separate your personal morality from your political preference in some weird attempt to separate “church” from “state”. It’s truly bizarre.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m only partially talking about the politician’s morality - although I do tend to believe a lot of them do truly think they are working for the common good.

I’m more talking about you trying to separate your personal morality from your political preference in some weird attempt to separate “church” from “state”. It’s truly bizarre.

I honestly do not care whether you think it is bizarre or not.

 

[Mister Emu]

Witnesses died when the Democrats shot down supporting even a single witness for the defence.

I believe the "trade" idea was floated for exactly the purpose of galvanizing wayward republicans in the face of democratic intransigence.

If no witnesses are brought in, Democrats will have no one to thank but themselves and their overriding desire to protect the establishment front runner from further embarrassment.

 

[esmith]

Well now it appears that we have a member that can see into the future according to the title of their post.

 

[metis]

The Pubs have no interest in facts, nor any interest in preventing former KGB head Vladimir Putin from interfering in our elections. They know that in the long run they will not be able to win fair national elections because of changing demographics.

As I said once before, I would suggest that the staunch Trump defenders call Putin and ask if there's an old Soviet uniform they could wear because that's essentially where their "heart" seems to be, especially since they won't accept our own 17 intelligence agencies that includes military ones. What an utter disgrace.