Lindsey Graham On Witnesses at an Impeachment trial

[RetiredGySgt]

He could have lied about the color of his socks, same result.

It wasn't WHAT he lied about, it was the fact he LIED.

I know of some, and they are now on this board, that it took nearly 2 years to admit Clinton lied.

Clinton lied about consensual sex with an adult.
Trump is lying about matters of war and peace

Clinton lied under oath.

So far, Trump hasn't that I know of.

Makes a difference

And now you know why Trump REFUSES to testify under oath

And once again...Clinton lied about a consensual sex act with an adult.

A question a sitting President should never have been asked

And once again...Clinton lied about a consensual sex act with an adult.

He could have lied about the color of his socks, same result.

It wasn't WHAT he lied about, it was the fact he LIED.

That is THE definition of the "perjury trap" Trumpers feared would ensnare Trump. The difference being HE was being asked about things that have substance.

Clinton was IN COURT because of allegations of sexual misconduct with underlings, LYING about having sex with an underling was in fact a major deal and was substantive to the particular case. Keep lying it suits you so well.

 

[OKTexas]

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...

So why hasn’t Schiff released Atkinson’s behind doors testimony?

Because it has no bearing on the case, but I would be all in favor of everything coming out, just release all the emails and let all the witnesses testify. We know Trump withheld the aid -because an email that Trump tried to hide said he did- and the evidence points to Trump withholding the aid for a quid pro quo.

Just release the evidence, if Trump is not guilty what does he have to hide.

BU, bu, but you already said Trump is guilty. That's all you're interested in. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

I know of some, and they are now on this board, that it took nearly 2 years to admit Clinton lied.

Clinton lied about consensual sex with an adult.
Trump is lying about matters of war and peace

Clinton lied under oath.

So far, Trump hasn't that I know of.

Makes a difference

And now you know why Trump REFUSES to testify under oath

And once again...Clinton lied about a consensual sex act with an adult.

A question a sitting President should never have been asked

And once again...Clinton lied about a consensual sex act with an adult.

He could have lied about the color of his socks, same result.

It wasn't WHAT he lied about, it was the fact he LIED.

So your response to Trump hiding the evidence and blocking the witnesses is that Clinton lied. You still have yet to produce a reason why the witnesses can't testify and why the emails remain hidden. And you can't explain why an innocent man would have to hide all the evidence. It's easy to block witnesses and evidence, then claim you are not guilty.

Repeating the same losing BS over and over won't make it a winner.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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...

WTF, you didn't get enough "truth" and "Facts" from the inquiry...dumbass.

Yeah great response. Just hide the facts and block the witnesses then try to claim you are not guilty, who would be dumb enough to believe that... Oh wait you would be.... dumbass

Thinking must not be your strong suit.

Evidently you didn't watch any of that dog and pony show you idiots called an inquiry.

But he has no problem with lying about them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So why hasn’t Schiff released Atkinson’s behind doors testimony?

Because it has no bearing on the case, but I would be all in favor of everything coming out, just release all the emails and let all the witnesses testify. We know Trump withheld the aid -because an email that Trump tried to hide said he did- and the evidence points to Trump withholding the aid for a quid pro quo.

Just release the evidence, if Trump is not guilty what does he have to hide.

Riight, only one closed door testimony is being withheld from the public by Schiff, and it’s because it has “no bearing” on the case. It’s only the IG who alerted law makers about the whistleblower and altered documents and lied. He’s now under investigation himself.

But he has “no bearing” on the case.

Riiight, what you said has no factual basis what so ever.

Like I said I would be fine with having everything come out, the whistleblower complaint, all the emails that Trump has hidden, John Bolton, Mulvaney, the 3 amigos, Eisenberg and all the others testimony...

Trump is hiding the evidence because he is guilty. It's easy to claim you are not guilty when you have hidden all the incriminating evidence.

Uh-huh, it has “no factual basis” because you say so.

As for President Trump “hiding evidence”, then you are admitting the House provided no evidence of any crime, and Dems are relying on President Trump to provide evidence of his own guilt. Do you know how ******* insane you sound?

Provide real evidence that says it has "factual basis"

President Trump to provide evidence of his own guilt???
Huh? No president Trump is blocking the witnesses from testifying and hiding all the documents and emails that were subpoenaed. YOu see innocent people don't do that... only the guilty do that

The burden of proof is not on Trump, it's on the house, and they fucked it up. Deal with it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton?
The Senate must hear his testimony in an impeachment trial.
Opinion | Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton?

The core principle behind the rule of law is that justice is blind and partisan identity should not influence a trial’s outcome. But anyone watching Mr. McConnell twist himself into knots in trying to block witnesses and documents has to wonder whether this notion ever took root in his mind. He has gone so far as to say that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.” He also said, “There’s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”

How can Mr. McConnell make such a claim without having heard from Mr. Bolton? Remember that the diplomat Fiona Hill testified at the House impeachment hearings that Mr. Bolton called the pressuring of Ukraine by the administration a “drug deal” and said he wanted no part of it. Mr. Bolton himself has said that he possesses new information that has not been revealed. He even gave a speech saying that some of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy decisions were made in his self-interest, not in the interest of the American people. Particularly after the United States’ killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran, such questions have arisen once again.

And how can Mr. McConnell make such a claim without having heard from the most important witness of all, Mr. Trump? The president has been too scared to testify, and too scared to let anyone else in his administration testify. This is not a particularly compelling demonstration of innocence. When the House was holding impeachment hearings, Mr. Trump said he wanted the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry to testify. Even that pretense is now gone.

There is only one possible explanation for this behavior: He is afraid of the truth. Otherwise, what argument can there be for refusing to hear from a central witness like Mr. Bolton, who other witnesses have indicated was exceptionally concerned about the suspension of military aid to Ukraine?
...................................................................................................................................
Why are Moscow Mitch and Vlad's favorite candidate so afraid the truth will come out if Individual 1 is innocent?

What's wrong, can't express your own opinions, you have to post the opinion of some other jackass?

.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

View attachment 299630

LOL be specific and cite an actual source that says 17 Intel agencies believe Trump conspired with Russia or one that says he blackmailed Ukraine, or even one that says he obstructed Justice. As for News sources they prove how corrupt unethical and untruthful they are on a daily basis.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

I'll take number two.

 

[Lesh]

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.

You're a liar, Vindman said not once but twice in his open testimony that the transcript was very accurate. BTW that is the only official transcript that exist.

.

Vindman said the exact opposite. He said the MEMO ( it was not a transcript... official or otherwise) was NOT accurate

 

[toobfreak]

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...

Funny, what country do you live in? Here in American no one needs prove their innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt. Oh and as for Lindsey and his desire for witnesses with first hand knowledge, I sat through hours of impeachment testimony and never saw Schiff or Nadler present a single witness with actual first hand evidence! Yet they still found grounds for the charges none of which were even criminal!

 

[Lesh]

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...

Funny, what country do you live in? Here in American no one needs prove their innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt. Oh and as for Lindsey and his desire for witnesses with first hand knowledge, I sat through hours of impeachment testimony and never saw Schiff or Nadler present a single witness with actual first hand evidence! Yet they still found grounds for the charges none of which were even criminal!

Then you were sleeping because there were numerous first hand witnesses

 

[toobfreak]

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...

Funny, what country do you live in? Here in American no one needs prove their innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt. Oh and as for Lindsey and his desire for witnesses with first hand knowledge, I sat through hours of impeachment testimony and never saw Schiff or Nadler present a single witness with actual first hand evidence! Yet they still found grounds for the charges none of which were even criminal!

Then you were sleeping because there were numerous first hand witnesses

WHO was a first hand witness to WHAT crimes?

 

[Nostra]

How many witnesses were called and testified publicly during the Clinton trial?

Zero.

Oops!

 

[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.

Oh wait...didn't the White House forbid relevant witness' from testifying? Oh please say it ain't so.

Witnesses relevant to what? Some bs, fake investigation? Another witch hunt "investigation" with the "win at any cost" slogan? Screw due process, screw the laws, screw the Constitution, just as long as these deranged traitors can overturn a duly elected president. I still recall when Hillary asked President Trump if he would honor the outcome of the election, regardless of who won. Too bad her supporters are incapable of fulfilling the same promise. Of course, she asked that when she still believed that the election she had bought and paid for, the office she had been promised when she stepped back for Obama to take it, was hers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I know of some, and they are now on this board, that it took nearly 2 years to admit Clinton lied.

Clinton lied about consensual sex with an adult.
Trump is lying about matters of war and peace

Clinton LIED in a court case about having sex with an underling, the Court case was about HAVING sex with an underling........ Moron.

LOL. I got a BJ in the Oval Office from a consenting adult..and that's so the same as consulting with a foreign power to swing an election in my favor, obstruction of both Congress and justice, and strong arming a foreign power to swing an upcoming election in my favor..yikes...I'm out of breath.

Man, I want some of what you're smoking.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Oh wait...didn't the White House forbid relevant witness' from testifying? Oh please say it ain't so.

Witnesses relevant to what? Some bs, fake investigation? Another witch hunt "investigation" with the "win at any cost" slogan? Screw due process, screw the laws, screw the Constitution, just as long as these deranged traitors can overturn a duly elected president. I still recall when Hillary asked President Trump if he would honor the outcome of the election, regardless of who won. Too bad her supporters are incapable of fulfilling the same promise. Of course, she asked that when she still believed that the election she had bought and paid for, the office she had been promised when she stepped back for Obama to take it, was hers.

The Republicans complained that there was no first hand account. Yes or no?

Bolton, for one, would provide that. Yes or no?

So why NOT here him?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Oh wait...didn't the White House forbid relevant witness' from testifying? Oh please say it ain't so.

Witnesses relevant to what? Some bs, fake investigation? Another witch hunt "investigation" with the "win at any cost" slogan? Screw due process, screw the laws, screw the Constitution, just as long as these deranged traitors can overturn a duly elected president. I still recall when Hillary asked President Trump if he would honor the outcome of the election, regardless of who won. Too bad her supporters are incapable of fulfilling the same promise. Of course, she asked that when she still believed that the election she had bought and paid for, the office she had been promised when she stepped back for Obama to take it, was hers.

Also. This isn’t about Hillary. Let’s let her go.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Oh wait...didn't the White House forbid relevant witness' from testifying? Oh please say it ain't so.

Witnesses relevant to what? Some bs, fake investigation? Another witch hunt "investigation" with the "win at any cost" slogan? Screw due process, screw the laws, screw the Constitution, just as long as these deranged traitors can overturn a duly elected president. I still recall when Hillary asked President Trump if he would honor the outcome of the election, regardless of who won. Too bad her supporters are incapable of fulfilling the same promise. Of course, she asked that when she still believed that the election she had bought and paid for, the office she had been promised when she stepped back for Obama to take it, was hers.

The Republicans comp,aimed tharpt there was no first hand account. Yes or no?

Bolton, for one, would provide that. Yes or no?

So why NOT here him?

spell check on the blink?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Oh wait...didn't the White House forbid relevant witness' from testifying? Oh please say it ain't so.

Witnesses relevant to what? Some bs, fake investigation? Another witch hunt "investigation" with the "win at any cost" slogan? Screw due process, screw the laws, screw the Constitution, just as long as these deranged traitors can overturn a duly elected president. I still recall when Hillary asked President Trump if he would honor the outcome of the election, regardless of who won. Too bad her supporters are incapable of fulfilling the same promise. Of course, she asked that when she still believed that the election she had bought and paid for, the office she had been promised when she stepped back for Obama to take it, was hers.

The Republicans comp,aimed tharpt there was no first hand account. Yes or no?

Bolton, for one, would provide that. Yes or no?

So why NOT here him?

spell check on the blink?

lol...maybe