• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The will of the MAJORITY of the people.


If the Senate does not allow witnesses those up for re-election can kiss their seats goodbye.
 

I thought that is why we're a Republic?
 

A number of witnesses requested by the right we're allowed to testify during the impeachment hearings.

The other Witnesses not allowed to testify where either not relevant to the impeachment hearing or it was The Whistleblower

Law enforcement authorities often have tip lines. Anonymous tips are given and they are investigated as of the veracity. if they turn out true then reports are filed and prepared for the DOJ.

Standard protocol is not to drag in the anonymous tipsters because if they did that it would discourage tipsters which are vitally needed for the process in order to put a dent in crime. Whistleblowers are treated in the same light as anonymous tipsters. If information in a whistleblowers report is found accurate, that is all that matters.

All that matters is whether the report filed by whistleblower is accurate.

As Adam Schiff said several times it does not matter whether the Whistleblower Or democrats like or dislike Trump all that matters is his misconduct and whether that are not that misconduct merits impeachment and removal from office , that is the only relevant fact

Trump's only motive for exposing The Whistleblower is retribution and to discourage future whistleblowers because he does not like people shedding light on his misconduct. This is his motive for suppressing testimonies and documents, he does not like the spotlight shone on his misconduct. To allow a man like Trump to continue to be in office means that he will continue his lawlessness which will have the effect of disemboweling the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Obviously I disagree with your conclusions but i respect that you feel as you do. Rather than respond with one long post explaining all the things my opinion differs than yours, i would like to push back on one single claim that you made. The teason being is i heard the democrats make the same point and theres a problem with it.
The witnesses republicans wanted to hear from were dismissed because in the democrats view they were irrelevant to the inquiry. If thats their position how do you explain all the irrelevant witnesses they themselves called? It seems like they want it both ways. They paraded quite a few of witnesses that did not have any factual evidence to contribute. They only contributed their opinions.
For instance,
The ambassodor herself, Yanukovich, how was anything she added relevant? She wasnt involved in the allegeded extortion. If we are to believe the democrats theory she was removed to get her out of the way before any of it had taken place. She offered nothing but her opinion yet that democrats considered relevant. I could list more witnesses that had absolutely no information to add but i really dont want to get into the weeds. I just want to know why Democrats like yourself think its ok for one side to enter into evidence opinions that support one sides narrative but not the others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Logician Man said:
/// but when it comes down to it they really don't care all that much. /// <---- Prove this positive claim.
Click to expand...
Here's yet more evidence for those of you who haven't figured it out yet. People just don't care about this impeachment nonsense...

CNN's Axelrod says impeachment didn't come up until 80 minutes into focus group | TheHill
"When it came up, they said, you know, it's terrible what he did, the case has been proven, but we know how it's going to turn out," Axelrod continued. "So we're not really that interested, we're ready to move on."
Click to expand...

It's almost as if Chicago Democrats are reading my posts - this is exactly what I said a couple of days ago.
 


From your comment, it's obvious that you do not grasp the concept of what is, and what is not, a relevant witness.

Most witnesses are not involved with what is being alleged, so you logic wanes. The fact that she was an impediment to Trump's scheme has been factually established, we have hard evidence of that fact, tapes, emails, and texts. Her testimony is absolutely relevant.


Though IANAL, I would believe that In criminal law, persons are called as witnesses all the time, persons who did not actually see a perpetrator "commit the crime", but witnessed a lot of peripheral things that happened in and around the action, which are relevant to the plaintiff's case. Yovanovich's testimony is, indeed, absolutely relevant. Opinions from FSO's close to the action are very much relevant. See, they were all in the thick of the action, they were all very close to it, and can add a perspective from that vantage point. Of course, those who interacted with the president, Trump is not allowing them to testify. So, On what planet do you live? She interacted with Pompeo, with Bolton, and many others, she's very much in the thick of things, she's ambassador to Ukraine ( or was ), so, that you'd assert she is not relevant is astonishing. Joe Biden, whether or not his relationship with his son is corrupt( and there is no evidence that is true ) is irrelevant, it all happened YEARS before Trump was in office. As for the WB, I explained why he or she cannot be summoned.

See, as I understand it, they way prosecutors work, is they get testimony from peripheral witnesses first, testimony which is used to corroborate the testimonies of those who are direct witnesses, then they go for the direct witnesses. So, dems have done phase one. But, phase two, the testimony of direct witnesses, Pompeo, Bolton, Guiliani, etc., Trump has directed them to defy all subpoenas. Don't blame dems for that.


Relevancy is established by proximity. The Biden's did not have proximity. That is why dems are not asking their opinions, or yours, or mine, we were not close to the action.
 
Last edited:


The US is, indeed, a 'democracy', or rather, a democracy of a certain type, a type which is called a republic. It's not a direct democracy, it's a democracy of representatives.

Democracy, even a republican democracy, has always been about "majority rule". Majorities are fact, they are not 'phony'. In our representative democracy, the MAJORITY in the House, and the Senate, RULE. Indeed, the majority of the electorate does care about that destructive and runaway criminal enterprise parading as the republican party enough that a majority voted for a democrat in 2016 and for democrats in 2018. I hate to tell you this, but there are more of us, than there are of you.

"every one knows", is a pseudo debate tactic called "weasel words", and indicative that your argument is weak.

Your comment is rife with vacuous assertions, and, as such, I'll file it in the "incompetent argument" file.
 
Last edited:
Piglet said:
The democrats want to ensure that the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Adam Schiff don't have to testify. In order to block their testimonies, the democrats will not be open to calling witnesses.
Click to expand...

Piglet:

The Republicans control the Senate and could call The Bidens and Representative Schiff anytime they want. The Democrats want witnesses which they legally subpoenaed but which the Administration and the President unlawfully blocked by illegally invoking executive privilege which by American jurisprudence does not apply to presidential impeachment cases or investigations of the presupident (US vs. Nixon 1974) according to the Law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy
 
Last edited:

US v Nixon dealt with physical evidence, not witnesses. Courts are there for all conflicts between the two other branches. Were the witnesses legally subpoenaed? I’ve seen conflicting opinions on that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I specifically choose the ambassador instead of low hanging fruit like the constitutional lawyers because i could see your argument from a mile away. Its unreasonable to say her experiences are relevant to events that transpired but the target of the investigation that is being claimed is inappropiate is irrelevant. Either they both are ir neither are.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Who are you insinuating is the "target of the investigation", that you are conflating with Yovanovich?


If you are saying the testimonies of Biden and Yovanovich are either appropriate or they are not, if that is what you are saying, then....


What you are saying is absolutely incorrect.

You are conflating the two. And, you are confused on what is relevant, and what is not. I've explained that, and you haven't refuted it.

You just made the vacuous claim.

In law, peripheral witnesses are called to testify, ALL THE TIME

In law, experts are called to testify, ALL THE TIME.

The FSOs are both experts and peripheral witnesses. Their "opinions" are therefore allowed. Biden was not a peripheral witness. Repubs want to question him on his relationship with his son, a fact which occurred years before the events surrounding Trump which led to his impeachment, and therefore there is no proximity. If they want to investigate Biden, then go for it, in the legal way, as a separate investigation via cooperation with their respective justice departments, but to drag Biden into the investigation of Trump is a wild goose chase having nothing to do with the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Yes, this is not a criminal trial, but they are similar in this regard. There is no logic you can use to state otherwise.

There is no "low hanging fruit", there is no fruit, period.

You are just wrong, and you are wrong ON EVERY LEVEL.
 
Last edited:
Sorry i worded it confusingly. Yes i was referring to Biden.
Bidens activities were the subject of the investigation that Trump os being impeached for so his testimony is jist as relevant as the ambassadors.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Sorry i worded it confusingly. Yes i was referring to Biden.
Bidens activities were the subject of the investigation that Trump os being impeached for so his testimony is jist as relevant as the ambassadors.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No, the managers were defending Trump's allegations against him.

Biden has no testimony that could confirm, or refute, Trump's articles of impeachment, either direct or peripherally.

Explain to me what possible testimony could Biden could give that would help or harm Trump? If you can do that, then maybe I'll change my mind.


You can't, therefore his testimony is not relevant. That being said, the right would claim his testimony is relevant whether or not his name was brought up by the managers, so your claim is disingenuous at best.
 
Trump claims he has reasonable enough suspicion to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats are claiming that he does not and the only conclusion left to draw from that is that Trumps motives were personal. If you cant see how testimony from the Bidens could be relevant, I cant help you.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 


Exactly! Anyone who thinks they need not testify are so far gone, there can be no help. Even if the Bidens do not testify, methinks their day of reckoning is coming with the plethora of information coming out about the Biden family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…