Tweet
Before Obama and Hillary, I never realized how much THEY hated US
-
-
Giuliani associate to turn over iPhone data, documents to House committee
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...ouse-committee
Maybe this is why Nancy Pelosi decided to hang on to the Articles of Impeachment. Is this bad news for President Trump? Maybe, maybe not but it will no doubt be spun as that.
No doubt is Parnas is being squeezed by the office prosecuting him for campaign finance violations. But sunshine is the best disinfectant so let's get everything out on the table including the whitstleblower, IG Atkinson's testimony and any and all evidence Giuliani may have accumulated on Ukraine corruption and any other available information about that and not just things involving the Bidens.
Comment
-
I've said before and I'll say it again: The President is a truth mirror. What you submitted was one of the first things I noticed, and still do more than ever, and that is "damn, they hate us a lot."Originally posted by pinstripers View Post
The President didn't create it, he revealed it...Comment
-
Has this video been doctored or tricked up?
Comment
-
It's no Sulamsni funeral crowd, though , is it?Originally posted by 1972Shocker View Post"When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
I believe that was in Toledo, Ohio where around 8,000 people, mostly Trump supporters, were waiting to get into a downtown arena for a Trump rally. So think how it would look if 10,000 Shocker fans were waiting to get into Koch Arena for a game and that's what it would look like.Originally posted by 1972Shocker View PostComment
-
And Trump can't even dunk!!Originally posted by 1979Shocker View PostKung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
-
I'm a novice in the political side of SN but the news states that the House wants to introduce more/new evidence into the impeachment trial. I thought the House was responsible for obtaining evidence and the Senate was only responsible for determining if the evidence makes it an impeachable offense. Trying to introduce more/new evidence at this juncture seems to fly in the face of House and Senate responsibilities that are outlined in the Constitution.Comment
-
Constitutionally there is nothing outlined with regards to witnesses. The Senate chooses how to run the trial. What you are describing is one side. There is also nothing stopping the Senate. What if new evidence comes to light the House didn't know about? Should the Senate ignore that evidence?
Comment
-
The senate can do as they wish apparently.Comment
-
The senate can do what 51 of the senators wish to do.Comment
-
So we agree then.Originally posted by jdmee View Post
What evidence?
It's really an easy case isn't it?Comment
-
Like if the Dems miraculously come up with a document that proves that Trump did tie the aid to the investigation and includes a rough draft of the commercial he is working on. Something I am sure Schiff is working on right now.Originally posted by ShockingButTrue View Post
Or it could be the fact that Trump was withholding/pausing Aid to Afghanistan, El Salvador, Honduras, and others at the same time he was pausing the aid to the Ukraine.
My previous comment about new evidence and the Senate can decide is just based on the comment "Trying to introduce more/new evidence at this juncture seems to fly in the face of House and Senate responsibilities that are outlined in the Constitution."
As a general thought.
I personally think the Senate should be able to call any clarifying witness they want. If there is contradictory or confusing testimony in the House or White Houses cases, they have a duty to get clarification on that information.
If there is anything that comes to light that the House could not have, did not have access to, then ok. i.e. if the President is being impeached for capital murder and the weapon shows up between the House impeachment and the Senate Trial. Bring that evidence to the Senate, bring on the Witness testimony on the ballistics, the physical evidence etc.
But the Senate should not call witnesses because the House did a crappy job and didn't want to put the time/effort into doing its job. That is not the purpose of the Senate.Comment
-
"If" is right. I agree. As of now, nothing.Originally posted by jdmee View Post
The house investigation revealed a whole lotta' hearsay and really nothing else... They voted to impeach on hearsay. It's that simple.
My assertion is where is Bolton's evidence? And "if" there is any, just go all the way backwards from there... It could possibly benefit the President, because
God knows the lead house manager brought up a whole bunch of stuff to throw into the kitchen sink.Last edited by ShockingButTrue; January 27, 2020, 04:57 PM.Comment
Comment