The Democrats also denied witnesses, so that's not the strongest argument. I would have been all for hearing all of the witnesses but that never happened.

How is your argument any stronger? You're claiming there's something that we haven't ever seen. You're purely relying on speculation. Good luck with that one. I'm making my arguments based on the evidence we've seen.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 05:20pm

The GOP wanted to out whistleblowers. That's why the witnesses were blocked.

Rand Paul did it anyway after Chief Justice Roberts blocked him.

What witnesses did they deny that were relevant? The whistleblower isn't someone who needs to testify. Who else did they deny? Simply denying witnesses isn't the standard I'm using, it's denying witnesses with relevant first hand experience.



He isn't claiming there's something that we haven't seen, he's pointing out that you're both saying we've seen that there's nothing in the transcript and that we can't see the full transcript to verify that. You're trying to take the strongest arguments from both positions and ignoring that they are contradictory.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2020 05:21pm

The case should have never even been brought. The Impeachment vote should have never happened. The House brought it for purely political reasons.

This has been a sham since it started in 2016. Everyone KNOWS they can't "get Trump" on anything, but keeping the accusations in the public eye for 3 years straight will probably damage Trump. At least that's what the Dems hoped.
The only thing more embarrassing than this partisan BS, is the fact that some people have actually fallen for it.

If I was the Reps in the Senate, I would do the same thing. Doing anything else is lending unearned credence to the House's accusations.

The “transcript” on page one of the “transcript” quite literally reads “this is not a transcript”

Adam Schiff, Whistle blower, Bidens. We should have heard from them all.

They were all relevant.

None of those are relevant though.

Why should Schiff testify? He has no knowledge of what Trump did. Everything he could testify to would be known from other sources. If you want Schiff to testify to leaking or something that's a separate issue that should be brought up in its own trial.

The whistleblower is third party evidence that was sufficient to start an investigation, but cannot speak to the validity of any of the charges. See my previous post. If Tony tells me that Jeff admitted he killed somebody, then I tell the police, I'm the "whistleblower", but I'm not somebody who can contribute to the case. Tony could, but I can't.

Same with the Bidens. It really doesn't matter if the Bidens had a secret gay love affair spanning 20 years with Putin and the Ukrainian prime minister and they've been getting political favors from it the whole time. If Trump didn't have reason to think it was going on, then he doesn't get the defense of his actions AFTER learning that was a possibility. If I shoot a random person on the street, and it turns out he was a pedophile with a sex dungeon I had no knowledge of, that doesn't mean I don't get charged with murder.

Agreed, would be great information so we have an 'informed' public going into the next election. Instead we have delusion on each side, and a total waste of tax dollars. Complete disservice to constiuents, red blue green w/e.

Schiff spoke with the whistleblower prior to the trials. The whistleblower should be testifying, if you don't think his statements hold that much weight, that's fine, but it still was a significant part of information that was used for the impeachment process. Hunter Biden should be, he's at the source of it all.

I'm saying, the Democrats shouldn't be shunning Republicans for blocking witnesses if they're doing the same thing.

I would rather have all of them out there.