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
#176
#176
volfanjustin said:
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
Click to expand...

No, I mean the testimony from numerous witnesses, including Trump's own Ambassador to the EU, who stated that there was quid pro quo, which constitutes bribery and abuse of power. I am not talking to Schiff. I'm talking to you. In my book, your support of criminals makes you a criminal, and your support of treason makes you a traitor. There is a large body of evidence, and your reaction to that evidence is to cover it up. You might want to look up statutes for accessory after the fact. You can run your mouth knowing that you'll never be held to accounts, but that does not make you any less guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#179
#179
Vol Main said:
No, I mean the testimony from numerous witnesses, including Trump's own Ambassador to the EU, who stated that there was quid pro quo, which constitutes bribery and abuse of power. I am not talking to Schiff. I'm talking to you. In my book, your support of criminals makes you a criminal, and your support of treason makes you a traitor. There is a large body of evidence, and your reaction to that evidence is to cover it up. You might want to look up statutes for accessory after the fact. You can run your mouth knowing that you'll never be held to accounts, but that does not make you any less guilty.
Click to expand...
So. . .about those treasonous acts. What were/are they and why aren't they in the articles of impeachment?

I won't bother, right now, with the other BS you posted. I'm trying to keep it simple and less complicated for you.

You're welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and volfanjustin
#181
#181
37L1 said:
So. . .about those treasonous acts. What were/are they and why aren't they in the articles of impeachment?

I won't bother, right now, with the other BS you posted. I'm trying to keep it simple and less complicated for you.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm on mobile and you want me to write you a book. The answers are available but you have chosen to ignore them and now expect me to be your librarian, over a cell phone. If I give you sources, will you read them for the purpose of understanding the information, or callously dismiss them with flip remarks?
 
Last edited:
#182
#182
Vol Main said:
Thanks, but I'm on mobile and you want me to write you a book. The answers are available but you have chosen to ignore them and now expect me to be your librarian, over a cell phone. If I give you sources, will you read them?
Click to expand...
Cheezits, forking rice. You can't even put into simple, small words that which supports your stupid BS and then the "I'm on the phone, look it up for yourself" rejoinder. Yet you can type a long word like treasonous? Why, one could easily come to the conclusion you ain't got d!ck to support your posts.

Hmmm. Now, who does this remind me of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, hjeagle1vol, VolStrom and 2 others
#183
#183
Vol Main said:
No, I mean the testimony from numerous witnesses, including Trump's own Ambassador to the EU, who stated that there was quid pro quo, which constitutes bribery and abuse of power. I am not talking to Schiff. I'm talking to you. In my book, your support of criminals makes you a criminal, and your support of treason makes you a traitor. There is a large body of evidence, and your reaction to that evidence is to cover it up. You might want to look up statutes for accessory after the fact. You can run your mouth knowing that you'll never be held to accounts, but that does not make you any less guilty.
Click to expand...
So you listed up until bug eyed schiff called a break so he could run to the cameras, now did you watch past that? He changed his tune after the break.

Can you list everyone here who is a criminal? Also you have a duty to turn us all in if we are breaking a law.
 
#184
#184
37L1 said:
Cheezits, forking rice. You can't even put into simple, small words that which supports your stupid BS and then the "I'm on the phone, look it up for yourself" rejoinder. Yet you can type a long word like treasonous? Why, one could easily come to the conclusion you ain't got d!ck to support your posts.

Hmmm. Now, who does this remind me of?
Click to expand...
you are a criminal also, welcome to the club
 
#185
#185
volfanjustin said:
So you listed up until bug eyed schiff called a break so he could run to the cameras, now did you watch past that? He changed his tune after the break.

Can you list everyone here who is a criminal? Also you have a duty to turn us all in if we are breaking a law.
Click to expand...
He can't right now, he's on his cell, dontchano?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#190
#190
Sorry to be late for the party.........how long does this lying Adam Schiff dude get to show his rant?
Is it and hour or just 45 minutes.....I forget.
 
#192
#192
37L1 said:
Cheezits, forking rice. You can't even put into simple, small words that which supports your stupid BS and then the "I'm on the phone, look it up for yourself" rejoinder. Yet you can type a long word like treasonous? Why, one could easily come to the conclusion you ain't got d!ck to support your posts.

Hmmm. Now, who does this remind me of?
Click to expand...

Yourself?

Let's start with Trump's largest bankruptcy. From memory, wasn't it six hundred million dollars of mostly borrowed money? Afterward, weren't there no American banks willing to loan money to Trump? Didn't he then go-to a German bank for loans which were underwritten by a Russian government owned bank? If the answers are all yes, wouldn't you agree that Trump is heavily indebted to Russia? Some might say owned by Russia. Would that not reasonably be a real concern to you?
 
Last edited:
#194
#194
Vol Main said:
Yourself?
Click to expand...
Wow, you're a real wit, well half of one anyway. Still on your cell?

iu

You still haven't been able to affirmatively reply to the challenges that have been posed to you regarding supporting your allegations of crimes, treasonous acts and why they aren't in the articles of impeachment.

Which lame excuse are you going to dredge up now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, Orangeburst and volfanjustin
#195
#195
vols40 said:
This is quite possibly the most incoherent drivel ever spewed. And just because your incapable of providing for yourself and family it does mean that I should. And do you think asking a general question about whether facts matter means anything other than the people polled are stupid? Why don't you ask them if they believe that someone accused in this country bears responsibility for proving their innocence. Please do me a favor and do not move into my neighborhood. If you do I promise you won't like it. I have no problem calling you people out
Click to expand...

d12.jpg

Vote still stands at 57% to 43%.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Vol Main
#196
#196
Isn't that cute. So 37L1 wants to divert attention from the real issues and make me the issue, with semi cute remarks. Are you really that stuck in middle school?

Read my reply again. I can continue if you respond with something less ignorant than pissed on dirt.
 
Last edited:
#199
#199
Vol Main said:
Isn't that cute. So 37L1 wants to divert attention from the real issues and make me the issue, with semi cute remarks. Are you really that stuck in middle school?

Read my reply again.
Click to expand...
No need to read your reply again because it has no substance in regards to supporting your assertions that the President has committed treasonous acts and, if he has done that along with criminal acts, why they aren't in the articles of impeachment.

That's the real issue here, not the, "I'm on my cell look it up for yourself" BS.

You make yourself the issue by refusing to back your BS up. Your credibility is taking a hit and rightfully so.

We get it. You don't like Trump but you should admit it's your feelz simply because you can't put into words that which supports what you try to pass off as fact.
 
#200
#200
37L1 said:
Cheezits, forking rice. You can't even put into simple, small words that which supports your stupid BS and then the "I'm on the phone, look it up for yourself" rejoinder. Yet you can type a long word like treasonous? Why, one could easily come to the conclusion you ain't got d!ck to support your posts.

Hmmm. Now, who does this remind me of?
Click to expand...
Wasn't there another poster who used to add defenders of Trump to a list?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top