"Both sides block witnesses" isn't a meaningful standard. Witnesses should be blocked if they aren't relevant to the case. The witnesses you listed are not relevant to establishing the facts at hand or the motivations for the actions of the accused for the reasons I gave.

Again, there's a significant difference between blocking witnesses with first-hand knowledge from testifying, and blocking irrelevant testimony.

Yep. Now we have nothing in regards to other areas.

And people are arguing that Trump's corrupt, while ignoring all of this Biden stuff when he's a presidential candidate? Why doesn't anybody have any interest in that? So now you want to try to impeach a "corrupt" president, and elect a possibly corrupt new president?

Add up the dots. It sounds super fishy. Obviously I can't say with 100% certainty, but it sounds fishy as hell. I would say it warrants an investigation.

-Previous foreign company with ties to corruotion
-VP's son gets hired at board of said foreign company (huge conflict of interests), rakes in - what was it, like 80k a month?
-VP gets prosecutor fired while he's investigating company
-Next prosecutor doesn't investigate the company

I honestly think Joe was trying to protect his son from being exposed.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 05:48pm

Schiff, illegally meeting with the whistleblower before the hearings is damn sure relevant, as is Hunter Biden.
You can say they aren't another 10 times, but it won't make it true.

If Biden is corrupt then why didn't Trump start the investigation anywhere from 2016 when the event occurred to early 2019 before Biden was leading the Democratic primary? It is possible that Biden is corrupt, for Biden to have done everything he's accused of, and for Trump to still have committed a crime by using official resources for personal gain.

Lol what do you want me to say about the transcript?
I can only talk about what we can see.

I'm not going to rely on pure speculation.

*fixed

This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 1 2020 05:55pm

The problem is you're trying to say it exonerates Trump because we have a transcript of the call, and that the transcript can't be vetted because it's secret.

The second position is the correct one, so take that and don't pretend having the non-transcript transcript is a point in Trump's favor.

Okay, "the portion of the transcript we have seen has proven nothing and has little value to establishing that Trump committed a crime", happy?

Considering when that part of the transcript was released people jumped ship like it was the Holy Grail of evidence is a complete joke.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 06:02pm

Yeah. I'd have to agree with that. Wasting three years and tons of tax payer money to try to overturn an election, is pretty bad. It's probably even illegal.



/e The Democrats are not only trying to influence the 2020 election, they are STILL trying to influence the 2016 election.

This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 1 2020 06:03pm

That is a much better position than you were advocating before.

The transcript wasn't the "holy grail" your'e portraying it as. Sonder's testimony was the thing that really sealed it in most people's mind, at least on this forum.