Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

That is not even remotely what the impeachment is about. But if that is what someone told you, you need to broaden your sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

That is not even remotely what the impeachment is about. But if that is what someone told you, you need to broaden your sources.

Funny. I believe pp has hit the nail on the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

That is not even remotely what the impeachment is about. But if that is what someone told you, you need to broaden your sources.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-04/column-impeachment-wont-remove-trump-but-it-could-beat-him-in-2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

That is not even remotely what the impeachment is about. But if that is what someone told you, you need to broaden your sources.

Funny. I believe pp has hit the nail on the head.

Nope. If this were just a political exercise, Democrats would have started impeachment a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Spot on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

Jurors absolutely listen to witness testimony. That's most of what they do. Having the Senators just read transcripts or hear argument makes them more like a judge than a jury. The House managers should be entitled to compel and present witness testimony just as a litigant in court is able to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Wait - how would testifying waive executive privilege? They could still assert the privilege where they think the answers are protected.

And if the Senate is the trial (and the House the investigation), why wouldn't there be testimony? There were testifying witnesses in the Senate during the Clinton impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Pelosi took their decision not to testify as it was meant.

Why aren't you doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

That is not even remotely what the impeachment is about. But if that is what someone told you, you need to broaden your sources.

Funny. I believe pp has hit the nail on the head.

That's because you'd support Trump even if he shot your relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

I bet you also blame victims for the crimes committed against them, too.

Trump is dismantling the checks and balances of our democracy. What is he trying to hide that he is so scared of his officials answering questions about his activities?

People who have something to hide try to hide it.

[Anonymous]

What is hilarious is that after the totally rigged House impeachment hearings, the Democrats have found religion and want a "fair" trial.

McConnell has told Schumer to go to hell ...... and I don't blame him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is hilarious is that after the totally rigged House impeachment hearings, the Democrats have found religion and want a "fair" trial.

McConnell has told Schumer to go to hell ...... and I don't blame him.

Totally rigged impeachment hearings? You mean because Hunter Biden never testified about Trump's dealings with Zelensky?

Unfair!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

You have no idea what executive privilege is -- not letting them testify is not an exercise of executive privilege. Whoever told you that is wrong or lying to you.