Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

Question: if the alleged whistleblower is in fact this Eric Ciaramella and if it is true about his close relationships with the deep state. Then shouldn’t an investigation be done about his complaint and the leaks associated with it? Including Adam Shiffs involvement.

Sigh.

I have not been following the impeachment process because it has been a farce from the beginning. It is a politically driven shitshow pandering to a specific audience.

That being said, I guess I am in the minority here when I say that I think witnesses should have been called. One of the jobs of Congress is to keep the President in check. While politically driven, and more of a partisan circus than true investigation, the President is subject to the laws of the office. If he violated those laws, then he should be held accountable.

That said, by not allowing witnesses, the GOP looks just as partisan as the House did, and just as complicit in covering up wrongdoing as the House is in slandering everyone they can. I would have preferred the trial/circus go forward in order to reduce the optics of a cover up. I think the man is guilty, and should be found so, but following the idea that none of these are high crimes, he retains his office.

What is driving me crazy is the unwillingness of both sides to lose the partisan Bullshit and do what us actually right. I side with Murkowski's words from yesterday when she voted against the witnesses based on Warren's idiotic remarks insulting the very man who read them on the floor.

But what do I know?

Quote from SlingRider

Question: if the alleged whistleblower is in fact this Eric Ciaramella and if it is true about his close relationships with the deep state. Then shouldn’t an investigation be done about his complaint and the leaks associated with it? Including Adam Shiffs involvement.

Keep it in the bank for the next time an attempt is made to remove the elected president. Most likely other options are already in process to work against (remove) the President.

Quote from sideseatdriver

Sigh.

I have not been following the impeachment process because it has been a farce from the beginning. It is a politically driven shitshow pandering to a specific audience.

That being said, I guess I am in the minority here when I say that I think witnesses should have been called. One of the jobs of Congress is to keep the President in check. While politically driven, and more of a partisan circus than true investigation, the President is subject to the laws of the office. If he violated those laws, then he should be held accountable.

That said, by not allowing witnesses, the GOP looks just as partisan as the House did, and just as complicit in covering up wrongdoing as the House is in slandering everyone they can. I would have preferred the trial/circus go forward in order to reduce the optics of a cover up. I think the man is guilty, and should be found so, but following the idea that none of these are high crimes, he retains his office.

What is driving me crazy is the unwillingness of both sides to lose the partisan Bullshit and do what us actually right. I side with Murkowski's words from yesterday when she voted against the witnesses based on Warren's idiotic remarks insulting the very man who read them on the floor.

But what do I know?

Display More

Are you saying that everything the President does should be done by commitee

Quote from FunCycle

Are you saying that everything the President does should be done by commitee

No. I am saying the President is still subject to the laws of the country and is accountable for violations of those laws.

I hate our political system. I don't trust either party especially the Democrats. They're pathetic! I guess I should rephrase that and say I don't hate our political system I just hate the people that we elect. We need term limits no golden parachute

Quote from sideseatdriver

Sigh.

I have not been following the impeachment process because it has been a farce from the beginning. It is a politically driven shitshow pandering to a specific audience.

That being said, I guess I am in the minority here when I say that I think witnesses should have been called. One of the jobs of Congress is to keep the President in check. While politically driven, and more of a partisan circus than true investigation, the President is subject to the laws of the office. If he violated those laws, then he should be held accountable.

That said, by not allowing witnesses, the GOP looks just as partisan as the House did, and just as complicit in covering up wrongdoing as the House is in slandering everyone they can. I would have preferred the trial/circus go forward in order to reduce the optics of a cover up. I think the man is guilty, and should be found so, but following the idea that none of these are high crimes, he retains his office.

What is driving me crazy is the unwillingness of both sides to lose the partisan Bullshit and do what us actually right. I side with Murkowski's words from yesterday when she voted against the witnesses based on Warren's idiotic remarks insulting the very man who read them on the floor.

But what do I know?

Display More

Witnesses were called, 18 of them in the house. It was televised too. Approximately 28,000 documents were also sourced. The issue is, should the Senate have also heard the same witnesses, or called more. Since the house did a half assed job of indictment, it really was not up to the senate to help them out. I think the senate gave this more time than they really should have.

Quote from sideseatdriver

Sigh.

I have not been following the impeachment process because it has been a farce from the beginning. It is a politically driven shitshow pandering to a specific audience.

That being said, I guess I am in the minority here when I say that I think witnesses should have been called. One of the jobs of Congress is to keep the President in check. While politically driven, and more of a partisan circus than true investigation, the President is subject to the laws of the office. If he violated those laws, then he should be held accountable.

That said, by not allowing witnesses, the GOP looks just as partisan as the House did, and just as complicit in covering up wrongdoing as the House is in slandering everyone they can. I would have preferred the trial/circus go forward in order to reduce the optics of a cover up. I think the man is guilty, and should be found so, but following the idea that none of these are high crimes, he retains his office.

What is driving me crazy is the unwillingness of both sides to lose the partisan Bullshit and do what us actually right. I side with Murkowski's words from yesterday when she voted against the witnesses based on Warren's idiotic remarks insulting the very man who read them on the floor.

But what do I know?

Display More

I still have to go back to the question - if these witnesses they now want to call are central to the case for the impeachment charges the House submitted to the Senate then why didnt they call them in the house? If the Democrats deemed them to be essential to the charges that they brought then they either they are incredibly stupid for not calling them in the House - - or they know these witness would never be allowed to testify because of executive privilege and figured they could play political games by by saying if they are not called the Republicans were not fair.

Seriously - please tell me one good reason why they wouldn't have called these witnesses in the House if they were central to their case?

My guess is that they knew it could take up to a year to get past the court challenges on executive privilege (if that could even be done) - and figured it would better to put it off on the Senate - then if called the Senate proceedings get dragged out for the same reason all the way through the November election or if not called, as has happened, they now can say the Republicans cheated as a talking point until the election. If you think about it it has been pretty clear from the start they would never get the 2/3 votes in the Senate to actually remove Trump so why even do this at all if not to try to gain an advantage in the upcoming elections?

In the end the Democrats had their chance - if they had called these witnesses in the House there would be no option for the Senate to say "no" - - - for what ever reason the Democrats decided not to call them and now that they wont be included in the Senate is 100% on them - they had their chance and they blew it

Quote from SlingRider

Question: if the alleged whistleblower is in fact this Eric Ciaramella and if it is true about his close relationships with the deep state. Then shouldn’t an investigation be done about his complaint and the leaks associated with it? Including Adam Shiffs involvement.

There was, and the IC IG gave a deposition in the basement bunker that Schiff will not release. Remember it was deemed not warranted to be sent to Congress even after the dems had a midnight vote to change the Whistlblower statute allowing hearsay and not strictly first hand information to form a complaint only weeks before the compliant was filed.

The House has no standing to request new witnesses (notwithstanding the fact this is the job of the House investigation before voting for an impeachment and no matter how many times they say it, a new witness has never been heard in a Senate Presidential impeachment trial) , since they refuse to allow the testimony of an existing witness to be released, even in closed session, or entered in to the record.

To protect our system,the process, and all future Presidents the Senate did the right thing by rejecting the way the House handled this. Had they let it go forward, no matter your feeling about what was or wasn't done, whether it was OK, your party, or your feelings about the President, what the House did was rushed, improper, partisan, and simply wrong. Had they been willing to handle it correctly maybe the outcome would have been different, but our Constitutional safeguards worked to protect against an unfair process. No matter your opinion of the result if you take an unbiased look and judge it outside of this one President and for the good of the country going forward I think most would agree. I believe history will also see it that way.

.....

also - just to add for those who don't know - - the idea that witness were not allowed is a BS talking point - - The Democrats had 18 witnesses called to testify in the House and all of those 18 witnesses testimony is included in the Senate trial along with something like 28000 pages of other "evidence"

No matter what the President was well within his rights to investigate the Biden's as to what was going on. He did not need permission to do that.

Knowing that they would never get the Removal, they must have a alternative reason. The timing of this is critical to their plans. I say this due to the rush before and the delay after Christmas. Let’s look at what delays in getting to the vote creates.
It kept Bidens greatest challengers in DC, during the Iowa Caucus. The State if the Union Address will occur while Trump is not yet squirted. (this one bothers me). The Dems have orchestrated their leaks during delays in the proceedings. Hummmm.
I, for one, have no problem with no ADDITIONAL witnesses. The Dems should have gotten their shit together prior to bringing it to the Senate. yes, I would like the have heard from Bolton, Biden, the whistleblower and Shiff (under oath). But they really did not want that to happen.

Quote from Edward Neal

I still have to go back to the question - if these witnesses they now want to call are central to the case for the impeachment charges the House submitted to the Senate then why didnt they call them in the house? If the Democrats deemed them to be essential to the charges that they brought then they either they are incredibly stupid for not calling them in the House - - or they know these witness would never be allowed to testify because of executive privilege and figured they could play political games by by saying if they are not called the Republicans were not fair.

Seriously - please tell me one good reason why they wouldn't have called these witnesses in the House if they were central to their case?

My guess is that they knew it could take up to a year to get past the court challenges on executive privilege (if that could even be done) - and figured it would better to put it off on the Senate - then if called the Senate proceedings get dragged out for the same reason all the way through the November election or if not called, as has happened, they now can say the Republicans cheated as a talking point until the election. If you think about it it has been pretty clear from the start they would never get the 2/3 votes in the Senate to actually remove Trump so why even do this at all if not to try to gain an advantage in the upcoming elections?

In the end the Democrats had their chance - if they had called these witnesses in the House there would be no option for the Senate to say "no" - - - for what ever reason the Democrats decided not to call them and now that they wont be included in the Senate is 100% on them - they had their chance and they blew it

Display More

Edward Neal You hit the nail on the head. This was a total partisan Sham that took place without a By Partisan vote in the House. That is why no republican in the house supported it and most of witnesses were coached behind closed doors. Question; Would you like to be tried for a crime in this matter and not have a chance to defend yourself?

I found out (due to a legal action in Louisiana) that the lawyers representing each side are allowed to lie in the court. That is why I wanted Shiff under oath. If he was proven to perjure himself, he could be tossed out of the House.

Quote from SlingRider

Question: if the alleged whistleblower is in fact this Eric Ciaramella and if it is true about his close relationships with the deep state. Then shouldn’t an investigation be done about his complaint and the leaks associated with it? Including Adam Shiffs involvement.

The BS dog and pony show probably already cost billions... do we really wanna drag it out to the trillion dollar mark?

Is this the BEST the Democrats can come up with as Presidential material?

Joe Biden zinged a man in Iowa who asked him how to save his marriage.

“My wife recently left me. She’s divorcing me. What can I do to get her back? What advice would you give someone like me to get her back?” the man asked the Democratic presidential candidate at a campaign event in North Liberty, Iowa.

“I’ll talk to you afterwards, OK? I’m happy to. I promise I’ll talk to you afterwards,” Biden, 77, told the man.

“Could we just get this out right now?” the man replied, to which Biden said, “No.”

The man continued talking, and members of the crowd began booing him to sit down.

“I’m beginning to see why your wife left you,” Biden quipped, prompting laughter from the crowd. “Sir, I promise you I’ll spend time with you afterwards.”