Lindsey Graham On Witnesses at an Impeachment trial

[The Banker]

I want to know the truth and the facts, and that is the reason why I want to hear from the witnesses and see all the hidden emails. If Trump has nothing to hide this should be easy. And if he did nothing wrong then let the evidence prove that, but don't hide the evidence and then try and claim you are not guilty? That makes you look even more guilty. Funny how Lindsey Graham has changed his tune...

 

[whitehall]

"On witnesses"? What does that mean? It sounds like awkward english posted from some safe house in Baghdad.

 

[Auld Phart]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

 

[Jitss617]

Only two witnesses Ukraine president and trump.. move on

 

[gallantwarrior]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

 

[bodecea]

I want to know the truth and the facts, and that is the reason why I want to hear from the witnesses and see all the hidden emails. If Trump has nothing to hide this should be easy. And if he did nothing wrong then let the evidence prove that, but don't hide the evidence and then try and claim you are not guilty? That makes you look even more guilty. Funny how Lindsey Graham has changed his tune...

He's nothing but a toadie.

 

[The Banker]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

They did call them and Trump blocked them from testifying.
SO you think rules that block evidence are fine. I guess I'll go rob a bank, then block all the evidence against me because Trump did it and you would not have a problem with that.

Really you know why Trump is blocking the evidence, he is 100% guilty.

 

[The Banker]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now.

I guess you would rather just hide the facts and live the lie. Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

They did call them and Trump blocked them from testifying.
SO you think rules that block evidence are fine. I guess I'll go rob a bank, then block all the evidence against me because Trump did it and you would not have a problem with that.

Really you know why Trump is blocking the evidence, he is 100% guilty.

I believe President Trump invoked Executive Privilege (as many before him) and was waiting for a court determination. Pelosi, et.al, decided to rush their "judgement", forgoing further testimony in favor of expediency. They just cannot accept the results of a legitimate election because their c-u-next-tuesday failed to appeal to enough Americans to gain the office.

 

[Auld Phart]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now.

I guess you would rather just hide the facts and live the lie. Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

I take it you are a Trumper by that statement?

 

[DGS49]

A couple weeks ago, we were told that the House had sewn up a rock-solid, "unimpeachable" case for impeachment/removal. Trump was sure to be removed.

Now they say they need more witnesses to buttress the "rock solid" case. Hmm.

There are no facts that are in dispute. We have a ******* transcript of the conversation in question.

Most important, even assuming arguendo that President Trump delayed (or even would have withheld) the military aid in order to induce the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's...that ain't no crime, LET ALONE an impeachable offense. It is well within the Executive's discretion, and motivation is "rock solid." Former U.S. VIce President bragging about getting a prosecutor fired????

Are you shitting me?

 

[gallantwarrior]

And yet, they ignore the very public, very outspoken Biden quid-pro-quo regarding the investigation that might implicate his son. Asshole bragged about forcing the firing of an Ukranian investigator. What the hell?

 

[Maxdeath]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

They did call them and Trump blocked them from testifying.
SO you think rules that block evidence are fine. I guess I'll go rob a bank, then block all the evidence against me because Trump did it and you would not have a problem with that.

Really you know why Trump is blocking the evidence, he is 100% guilty.

You mean executive privilege that the Supreme Court has ruled on in the past? Where they claimed that the president and his people need to be able to freely express ideas without fear of reprisal. The same executive privilege that 44 used?

Funny how back when Clinton was being impeached the Dems were grabbing every microphone they could and claiming that impeachment should never be political, it should never be partisan.

Yet they were claiming that Trump had to be impeached almost before he had spent a day in office. Pelosi stated that they had been trying for 21/2 years to impeach him. They claimed that they were forced to do it. That it had to be done quickly or Trump would be reelected.
Not only could they not get even one independent or Republican to vote for impeachment but they could not even get all of the dem party to vote yes.

Now not only is there no need to hurry but Pelosi is trying to tell the senate how they need to run their part. The Senate did not jump in and tell the house how they had to run theirs. The rules for impeachment have been in place since Johnson was impeached, they were agreed to again when Clinton was impeached. Now suddenly Pelosi wants things done her way.

Still waiting for that incontrovertible evedince that Schiff has claimed proved Trump was quilty of collusion with Russia.

It looks as if the Dems have a Third Reich trial they are trying to defend that they hoped would make their bad candidates look better to the voting public.

 

[The Banker]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

They did call them and Trump blocked them from testifying.
SO you think rules that block evidence are fine. I guess I'll go rob a bank, then block all the evidence against me because Trump did it and you would not have a problem with that.

Really you know why Trump is blocking the evidence, he is 100% guilty.

I believe President Trump invoked Executive Privilege (as many before him) and was waiting for a court determination. Pelosi, et.al, decided to rush their "judgement", forgoing further testimony in favor of expediency. They just cannot accept the results of a legitimate election because their c-u-next-tuesday failed to appeal to enough Americans to gain the office.

Yes Trump blocked the witnesses and emails, like the one just released that said the order to withhold the aid comes directly from the president. We need to hear from John Bolton, and we need to hear the facts.

Funny how all of you are so scared of the facts. If Trump is not guilty then let the facts come out...

 

[The Banker]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now.

I guess you would rather just hide the facts and live the lie. Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

I take it you are a Trumper by that statement?

Show me where I have lied? Pretty much you had no real reply and had to try and divert.

 

[rightwinger]

I want to know the truth and the facts, and that is the reason why I want to hear from the witnesses and see all the hidden emails. If Trump has nothing to hide this should be easy. And if he did nothing wrong then let the evidence prove that, but don't hide the evidence and then try and claim you are not guilty? That makes you look even more guilty. Funny how Lindsey Graham has changed his tune...

What a shill!

 

[The Banker]

A couple weeks ago, we were told that the House had sewn up a rock-solid, "unimpeachable" case for impeachment/removal. Trump was sure to be removed.

Now they say they need more witnesses to buttress the "rock solid" case. Hmm.

There are no facts that are in dispute. We have a ******* transcript of the conversation in question.

Most important, even assuming arguendo that President Trump delayed (or even would have withheld) the military aid in order to induce the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's...that ain't no crime, LET ALONE an impeachable offense. It is well within the Executive's discretion, and motivation is "rock solid." Former U.S. VIce President bragging about getting a prosecutor fired????

Are you shitting me?

1) The transcript is an unofficial recollection of the call made after the fact and Vindman testified under oath that it left out key details about Biden, with the official transcript hidden away on the ultra top secret NICE server with nothing to warrant it being there hmmmm. And in the transcript Trump clearly asks about the investigation into Biden.

2) You are scared of the facts, emails, and witnesses. You know John Bolton and the others will tell the truth and admit to the quid pro quo, so you want the truth hidden.

 

[Auld Phart]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now.

I guess you would rather just hide the facts and live the lie. Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

I take it you are a Trumper by that statement?

Show me where I have lied? Pretty much you had no real reply and had to try and divert.

"Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now."


You saw my reply.

Pubs and dems both have done a 180 in the last 20 years.

You have selective outrage.

 

[The Banker]

Wait, why didn't the House call all relevant witnesses during their "investigation"? Oh, right, only the liars, cheats, and TDR sufferers responded to their summons.
The Senate rules that governed Clinton's impeachment are just fine. They were fair at the time so they should be more than adequate now.

They did call them and Trump blocked them from testifying.
SO you think rules that block evidence are fine. I guess I'll go rob a bank, then block all the evidence against me because Trump did it and you would not have a problem with that.

Really you know why Trump is blocking the evidence, he is 100% guilty.

You mean executive privilege that the Supreme Court has ruled on in the past? Where they claimed that the president and his people need to be able to freely express ideas without fear of reprisal. The same executive privilege that 44 used?

Funny how back when Clinton was being impeached the Dems were grabbing every microphone they could and claiming that impeachment should never be political, it should never be partisan.

Yet they were claiming that Trump had to be impeached almost before he had spent a day in office. Pelosi stated that they had been trying for 21/2 years to impeach him. They claimed that they were forced to do it. That it had to be done quickly or Trump would be reelected.
Not only could they not get even one independent or Republican to vote for impeachment but they could not even get all of the dem party to vote yes.

Now not only is there no need to hurry but Pelosi is trying to tell the senate how they need to run their part. The Senate did not jump in and tell the house how they had to run theirs. The rules for impeachment have been in place since Johnson was impeached, they were agreed to again when Clinton was impeached. Now suddenly Pelosi wants things done her way.

Still waiting for that incontrovertible evedince that Schiff has claimed proved Trump was quilty of collusion with Russia.

It looks as if the Dems have a Third Reich trial they are trying to defend that they hoped would make their bad candidates look better to the voting public.

No I mean the executive privilege that the Supreme court ruled in 1974:
That executive privilege does not extend to information that’s germane to criminal investigations.

Executive privilege won’t shield Trump from the impeachment inquiry

You sound like a person who is scared to death of the facts coming out. We all know why... John Bolton's testimony will bury Trump, and all those emails I'm sure there is a reason they have been hidden. Like the newly released email that said the order to withhold the aid came directly from Trump... hmmm

 

[The Banker]

Funny how Nadler and Pelosi changed their tune from then too, isn't it?

Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now.

I guess you would rather just hide the facts and live the lie. Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

Facts are kryptonite to a Trumper.

I take it you are a Trumper by that statement?

Show me where I have lied? Pretty much you had no real reply and had to try and divert.

"Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now."


You saw my reply.

Pubs and dems both have done a 180 in the last 20 years.

You have selective outrage.

SO you are trying to say that this statement is a lie?

"Yea they were wrong then and you and Graham are wrong now."

In the end all the facts came out in the Clinton impeachment... even the stupid cum stained dress, I guess Bill Clinton should have just hid all the evidence like Trump. It's easy to claim you are not guilty when you have hidden all the evidence.