I never heard of them wanting to call any witnesses that had relevant testimony. But, in any case, we didn't even need any witnesses to see that Trump did what he was accused of. The call summary he released showed that. It's just ridiculous. You know, I know, and everybody else knows that he did what he was accused of.
I also know Biden running his mouth bragging and Ukraine admitting to interfere in the election opened the door for Trump. You may not like it, but perfectly acceptable what Trump did.
Note this from the article you linked with underline added for emphasis:
Nadler also shot down other witnesses Republicans requested, including Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and witnesses related to unfounded GOP-claims of Ukrainian interference during the 2016 election.
The Republicans were just trying to distract. None of the witnesses they wanted to call had any bearing on the question of whether or not Trump did what he was accused of. It's just more of the same with respect to how corrupt the Republican Party has become.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
I also know Biden running his mouth bragging and Ukraine admitting to interfere in the election opened the door for Trump. You may not like it, but perfectly acceptable what Trump did.
No it's not. Everybody who wants to know knows that Biden was just expressing US policy. He did not even have the power to with hold any funds. There has never been anything to the thing Trump is trying to drum up on Biden. And nobody with a lick of sense thinks Trump was interested in getting the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Biden because he was concerned about corruption.
I also know Biden running his mouth bragging and Ukraine admitting to interfere in the election opened the door for Trump. You may not like it, but perfectly acceptable what Trump did.
No it's not. Everybody who wants to know knows that Biden was just expressing US policy. He did not even have the power to with hold any funds. There has never been anything to the thing Trump is trying to drum up on Biden. And nobody with a lick of sense thinks Trump was interested in getting the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Biden because he was concerned about corruption.
-Burisma, who was paying Hunter Biden a 7 figure sum of $$ for no apparent reason.
-Ukrainian state prosecutor opened a corruption investigation into Bruisma
-Joe Biden right after that just happened to tell the Ukrainian president that if they didn't fire the state prosecutor, that the US was going to withhold a billion in loan guarantees (Biden admitted to this).
Now that might have just been a hell of a coincidence, and Biden's actions might have been totally unrelated to Hunter's (never was formally investigated), but Biden has no business involving himself with telling the Ukranian president to take any action which affected Hunter's company, as that was a massive conflict of interest. He had to have known what was going on with his son & Burisma..At minimum Biden should have recused himself- other cabinet level could have dealt with the Ukranians.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:58 pm
The impeachment charade is almost done now. Joe Bidens numbers will plummet now and probably drop out.
It was not a charade. There was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump did what he was accused of and there very well could've been even stronger evidence if the Senate had pursued documents and additional witnesses.
However, I do think Biden is in trouble. I think Trump got extremely lucky again by virtue of what Hunter Biden did. Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong in expressing US policy. But the fact that Hunter Biden did what he did gave Trump and allies a chance to distort things. And what Hunter Biden did was indeed unseemly. I think it did put doubt in Democrat primary voters minds about Biden. I think without what Hunter Biden did Trump would be in serious trouble.
Another thing that has Biden in trouble is the response of the mainstream media. They have this thing about Iowa and New Hampshire. The two States will have 82 delegates combined among 4,750 to be earned during the primaries. Everybody knows Biden's strength is among non White voters and these are two States with >90% White populations. They incessantly broadcast that Biden has NO chance if he doesn't do well in either of those first two States. I think that has impacts when the most important factor to Democrat primary voters is "who can win?"
So Joe Biden threatening to hold up money to Ukraine until they fired the investigator is “doing nothing wrong”. An investigator that was investigating the company his son was a board member of. Mmmm Kay.....
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
I also know Biden running his mouth bragging and Ukraine admitting to interfere in the election opened the door for Trump. You may not like it, but perfectly acceptable what Trump did.
Note this from the article you linked with underline added for emphasis:
Nadler also shot down other witnesses Republicans requested, including Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and witnesses related to unfounded GOP-claims of Ukrainian interference during the 2016 election.
The Republicans were just trying to distract. None of the witnesses they wanted to call had any bearing on the question of whether or not Trump did what he was accused of. It's just more of the same with respect to how corrupt the Republican Party has become.
If those witnesses had no bearing, then why not allow them to be called? They would have made the Republicans look bad if they had no bearing and torn up by Democrats, but no.
Note this from the article you linked with underline added for emphasis:
The Republicans were just trying to distract. None of the witnesses they wanted to call had any bearing on the question of whether or not Trump did what he was accused of. It's just more of the same with respect to how corrupt the Republican Party has become.
If those witnesses had no bearing, then why not allow them to be called? They would have made the Republicans look bad if they had no bearing and torn up by Democrats, but no.
If they had any bearing at all why weren't they called by the Senate?
Thank you for playing we have some lovely gifts for you. Net contestant, please.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
If those witnesses had no bearing, then why not allow them to be called? They would have made the Republicans look bad if they had no bearing and torn up by Democrats, but no.
If they had any bearing at all why weren't they called by the Senate?
Thank you for playing we have some lovely gifts for you. Net contestant, please.
They WERE called and the House (Nadler) denied them.
You're just bummed that the "master strategist", Pelosi, failed in her attempt to throw a tantrum and get her way.
Well if they house didn’t want to hear them, why should the senate give a shit at that point?
To exonerate the President?
Exonerate him from what? They proved ZIP squat nada in their “investigation”. The house had their chance. They didn’t want to hear what those witnesses had to say. Case closed, without a shred of proof.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Exonerate him from what? They proved ZIP squat nada in their “investigation”. The house had their chance. They didn’t want to hear what those witnesses had to say. Case closed, without a shred of proof.
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
Exonerate him from what? They proved ZIP squat nada in their “investigation”. The house had their chance. They didn’t want to hear what those witnesses had to say. Case closed, without a shred of proof.
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
I'm skeptical about whether the Senate took the proper course of action. Of course as a rational person, I'm equally skeptical about whether the House took the proper course of action in impeaching Trump. Both efforts were more about partisan theatrics than trying to do the right thing.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
I'm skeptical about whether the Senate took the proper course of action. Of course as a rational person, I'm equally skeptical about whether the House took the proper course of action in impeaching Trump. Both efforts were more about partisan theatrics than trying to do the right thing.
I missed most of the latest debate due to other shows (like Family Feud, which is MUCH more entertaining) and the usual lack of reception on ABC10 with my converter box. Did anyone ask the candidates anything about the Pelosi Hissy Fit?
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
Exonerate him from what? They proved ZIP squat nada in their “investigation”. The house had their chance. They didn’t want to hear what those witnesses had to say. Case closed, without a shred of proof.
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
He was found not guilty. The house made a shitty case, failed to call pertinent witnesses (and we know why ), thus they sent a shitty case to the Senate. If the witnesses weren’t good enough to be heard by the house, why in the fuck should the senate hear them?
Case closed. Not guilty. Four more years.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
He was found not guilty. The house made a shitty case, failed to call pertinent witnesses (and we know why ), thus they sent a shitty case to the Senate. If the witnesses weren’t good enough to be heard by the house, why in the fuck should the senate hear them?
Case closed. Not guilty. Four more years.
Amen! This is the biggest witch hunt in American history! Trump will be on the warpath for the next 4+ years! I hope he destroys everyone that ever wronged him and his lovely family.
No it's not. Everybody who wants to know knows that Biden was just expressing US policy. He did not even have the power to with hold any funds. There has never been anything to the thing Trump is trying to drum up on Biden. And nobody with a lick of sense thinks Trump was interested in getting the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Biden because he was concerned about corruption.
-Burisma, who was paying Hunter Biden a 7 figure sum of $$ for no apparent reason.
-Ukrainian state prosecutor opened a corruption investigation into Bruisma
-Joe Biden right after that just happened to tell the Ukrainian president that if they didn't fire the state prosecutor, that the US was going to withhold a billion in loan guarantees (Biden admitted to this).
Now that might have just been a hell of a coincidence, and Biden's actions might have been totally unrelated to Hunter's (never was formally investigated), but Biden has no business involving himself with telling the Ukranian president to take any action which affected Hunter's company, as that was a massive conflict of interest. He had to have known what was going on with his son & Burisma..At minimum Biden should have recused himself- other cabinet level could have dealt with the Ukranians.
The implication is that Biden wanted Ukraine to fire Shokin and close its investigation of Burisma to protect his son, Hunter, who served on the company’s board from 2014 to 2019. But, as we have written before, there is no evidence to support the claim that Hunter Biden was under investigation or that his father acted to kill the investigation of Burisma.
Of course...yes we know...the fact checkers are not to be believed because fact checking rarely supports the Trumpist world view.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
The only thing he was exonerated from was whether his actions amounted to a conviction by a Senate controlled by his own party.
He was found not guilty. The house made a shitty case, failed to call pertinent witnesses (and we know why ), thus they sent a shitty case to the Senate. If the witnesses weren’t good enough to be heard by the house, why in the fuck should the senate hear them?
Case closed. Not guilty. Four more years.
I agree. It may be 4 more years. Which only exonerates him in your mind. Low...bar.
He was found not guilty. The house made a shitty case, failed to call pertinent witnesses (and we know why ), thus they sent a shitty case to the Senate. If the witnesses weren’t good enough to be heard by the house, why in the fuck should the senate hear them?
Case closed. Not guilty. Four more years.
I agree. It may be 4 more years. Which only exonerates him in your mind. Low...bar.
There was NO. CASE. They made a shitty, shitty argument. What more is there to know? Seriously?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
), thus they sent a shitty case to the Senate. If the witnesses weren’t good enough to be heard by the house, why in the fuck should the senate hear them? 
