Should the Senate Allow Witnesses Be Called During the Impeachment Trial?

Should the Senate Call Witnesses to Testify During the Impeachment Trial?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 31 51.7%

  • No.

    Votes: 29 48.3%
  • Total voters
    60
#152
#152
Vol Main said:
The violations are presented by the House representatives in the Senate trial, which you will not be able to observe because Republicans barred camera coverage. But you post as if you do not care and do not want to know the answers to your own questions. Enough evidence was presented in the House to disprove your silly talk about a hoax. Numerous former federal prosecutors have stated that anyone but the President would have been prosecuted and convicted in criminal court from evidence already in the public record.

My side is the law, the facts of the case, and the U.S. Constitution, which I've sworn an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What is your side, Russia?
Click to expand...
Not sure which is more laughable, your side being law, the facts of the case, and the U.S. Constitution or my side being Russia. Both are a joke but I'm not surprised you fell for the Russia hoax also.
So you are backing off your charge that obstruction of justice was one of the articles?
No crime was committed, no crime is even cited in the hoax articles. You all were talking impeachment even before he was elected
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#154
#154
volfanjustin said:
Not sure which is more laughable, your side being law, the facts of the case, and the U.S. Constitution or my side being Russia. Both are a joke but I'm not surprised you fell for the Russia hoax also.
So you are backing off your charge that obstruction of justice was one of the articles?
No crime was committed, no crime is even cited in the hoax articles. You all were talking impeachment even before he was elected
Click to expand...

If the oath I swore to defend the U.
S. Constitution and your support of Trump's treasonous misconduct are laughing matters to you, then I must question your loyalty to this country. If you are not a hireling of Russia's Internet Research Agency, sitting in a cubicle in Leningrad, then you are one of their useful idiots, repeating lines fabricated by Russians to support Trump and incite the American people against our own government. Parroting lines falsely fabricated by Russian security does not make you an informed, intelligent Patriot; it makes you a mindlessly misinformed traitor. Tell me where you are getting your lines, and do not even pretend that you are thinking them up by yourself. Well, where are you getting your lines? From Trump? He lies every day. Are you pretending you don't know that?

You are correct about the title of the second article. Congress has a long history of oversight, recognized by federal courts. If you prefer not understanding the equivalence in order to argue a point, then do so. But your pretending that the allegations do not involve crimes is a lie disproven by a body of evidence. Denying that repeatedly does not make your denials true. It just makes you a liar.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#157
#157
Vol Main said:
If the oath I swore to defend the U.
S. Constitution and your support of Trump's treasonous misconduct are laughing matters to you, then I must question your loyalty to this country. If you are not a hireling of Russia's Internet Research Agency, sitting in a cubicle in Leningrad, then you are one of their useful idiots, repeating lines fabricated by Russians to support Trump and incite the American people against our own government. Parroting lines falsely fabricated by Russian security does not make you an informed, intelligent Patriot; it makes you a mindlessly misinformed traitor. Tell me where you are getting your lines, and do not even pretend that you are thinking them up by yourself. Well, where are you getting your lines? From Trump? He lies every day. Are you pretending you don't know that?

You are correct about the title of the second article. Congress has a long history of oversight, recognized by federal courts. If you prefer not understanding the equivalence in order to argue a point, then do so. But your pretending that the allegations do not involve crimes is a lie disproven by a body of evidence. Denying that repeatedly does not make your denials true. It just makes you a liar.
Click to expand...
You played at Miami?
LOL at treasonous, no wonder why most people doesn't take your party seriously.
And now I'm a traitor, this is good. Good stuff.

Turn CNN off, get a job and hobby and you will be much happier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and 1972 Grad
#158
#158
volfanjustin said:
You played at Miami?
LOL at treasonous, no wonder why most people doesn't take your party seriously.
And now I'm a traitor, this is good. Good stuff.

Turn CNN off, get a job and hobby and you will be much happier.
Click to expand...

That should be "most people don't," not "most people doesn't." Did you even graduate high school? You apparently think acting cute relieves you of responsibility for supporting a traitorous criminal. It doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#160
#160
Vol Main said:
If the oath I swore to defend the U.
S. Constitution and your support of Trump's treasonous misconduct are laughing matters to you, then I must question your loyalty to this country. If you are not a hireling of Russia's Internet Research Agency, sitting in a cubicle in Leningrad, then you are one of their useful idiots, repeating lines fabricated by Russians to support Trump and incite the American people against our own government. Parroting lines falsely fabricated by Russian security does not make you an informed, intelligent Patriot; it makes you a mindlessly misinformed traitor. Tell me where you are getting your lines, and do not even pretend that you are thinking them up by yourself. Well, where are you getting your lines? From Trump? He lies every day. Are you pretending you don't know that?

You are correct about the title of the second article. Congress has a long history of oversight, recognized by federal courts. If you prefer not understanding the equivalence in order to argue a point, then do so. But your pretending that the allegations do not involve crimes is a lie disproven by a body of evidence. Denying that repeatedly does not make your denials true. It just makes you a liar.
Click to expand...

Lulz
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#161
#161
Vol Main said:
That should be "most people don't," not "most people doesn't." Did you even graduate high school? You apparently think acting cute relieves you of responsibility for supporting a traitorous criminal. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
Traitorous criminal haha, you fighting luther to be the craziest socialist here?

Maybe your next round of impeachment hearings/articles will actually accuse a crime because these 2 don't have a crime included
 
#162
#162
hog88 said:
I voted yes on having witnesses. BUT if the House evidence and testimony isn't sufficient enough to garner a conviction should they have impeached?
Click to expand...

One does not determine the other. There is a reason impeachment is easier than conviction.
 
#164
#164
Vol Main said:
That should be "most people don't," not "most people doesn't." Did you even graduate high school? You apparently think acting cute relieves you of responsibility for supporting a traitorous criminal. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
"Traitorous criminal", lol. Let's look at that shall we?

Where has he been convicted as to criminal activity? What are those listed crimes to have "allegedly" occurred? If there are any, why aren't they specifically listed in the articles of impeachment? If they are, please point them out, I must have overlooked them.

Now lets exam your use of "traitorous." What acts of treason have "allegedly" occurred? If there are any, why aren't they specifically listed in the articles of impeachment? If they are, please point them out for all to see.

I won't even deign to presume your level of indoctrination, er, education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, tennvols77 and volfanjustin
#168
#168
volfanjustin said:
No, but none of that ever happened
Click to expand...

No honest person could deny the evidence after watching the testimony in the House hearings or reading the transcripts. As to your other questions about Trump's other crimes not included in the articles of impeachment, the House decided to limit the indictments, but a large body of evidence does exist for other crimes. You choose to ignore it and argue that evidence in public domain does not exist, which makes you an accessory and part of the attempt to cover-up those crimes. Why should I or anyone take you seriously as anything but a criminal. You do not accept evidence. You just try to cover it up with obvious lies.
 
#169
#169
Vol Main said:
No honest person could deny the evidence after watching the testimony in the House hearings or reading the transcripts. As to your other questions about Trump's other crimes not included in the articles of impeachment, the House decided to limit the indictments, but a large body of evidence does exist for other crimes. You choose to ignore it and argue that evidence in public domain does not exist, which makes you an accessory and part of the attempt to cover-up those crimes. Why should I or anyone take you seriously as anything but a criminal. You do not accept evidence. You just try to cover it up with obvious lies.
Click to expand...
You mean the one where every "witness" said they didn't know of any quid pro quo or bribery?

LOL now I'm a criminal, this is awesome. Well you should contact bug eyed schiff right away and turn me in
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and tennvols77
#175
#175
Vol Main said:
No honest person could deny the evidence after watching the testimony in the House hearings or reading the transcripts. As to your other questions about Trump's other crimes not included in the articles of impeachment, the House decided to limit the indictments, but a large body of evidence does exist for other crimes. You choose to ignore it and argue that evidence in public domain does not exist, which makes you an accessory and part of the attempt to cover-up those crimes. Why should I or anyone take you seriously as anything but a criminal. You do not accept evidence. You just try to cover it up with obvious lies.
Click to expand...
I bet you believed Blase Ford too, didn't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top