Poll of the Day > Honest question: why didn't the House call these witnesses?

Topic List	Page List: 1
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 9:19:30 AM #1:	Why didnt the house call the witnesses theyre now complaining that the Senate did not call? Like Bolton for example. Technically, they could still call them right now. Shouldnt Democrat constituents feel disappointed/upset that the Democrats in the house let them down? It kind of seems dishonest to point the finger at the Senate, when the House didnt take the time to investigate as they should have. After all, they swore they had a solid case. There is literally nothing stopping them from calling on Bolton to testify in the House right now. So, why not? <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933775414] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Why didnt the house call the witnesses theyre now complaining that the Senate did not call? Like Bolton for example. Technically, they could still call them right now. Shouldnt Democrat constituents feel disappointed/upset that the Democrats in the house let them down? It kind of seems dishonest to point the finger at the Senate, when the House didnt take the time to investigate as they should have. After all, they swore they had a solid case. There is literally nothing stopping them from calling on Bolton to testify in the House right now. So, why not? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OniRonin 02/01/20 9:23:34 AM #2:	please read the constitution --- http://boomeressentials.com/.well-known/ https://essentialboomer.guide/robots.txt #NotAllGamers #YesAllLandlords <cite>OniRonin posted [p:933775509] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>please read the constitution </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 9:29:35 AM #3:	OniRonin posted... please read the constitution Is there a portion that says the House is not allowed to subpoena John Bolton during the investigation process, in order to build the case they should have built? I dont think there is. please correct me if Im wrong. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933775625] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>OniRonin posted... </cite> <quote>please read the constitution</quote> Is there a portion that says the House is not allowed to subpoena John Bolton during the investigation process, in order to build the case they should have built? I dont think there is. please correct me if Im wrong. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OniRonin 02/01/20 9:35:49 AM #4:	BeerOnTap posted... Is there a portion that says the House is not allowed to subpoena John Bolton during the investigation process, in order to build the case they should have built? I dont think there is. please correct me if Im wrong. this is not how the constitution works. please read about the constitutional convention --- http://boomeressentials.com/.well-known/ https://essentialboomer.guide/robots.txt #NotAllGamers #YesAllLandlords <cite>OniRonin posted [p:933775773] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>Is there a portion that says the House is not allowed to subpoena John Bolton during the investigation process, in order to build the case they should have built? I dont think there is. please correct me if Im wrong.</quote>this is not how the constitution works. please read about the constitutional convention </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 9:39:58 AM #5:	OniRonin posted... this is not how the constitution works. please read about the constitutional convention So there is not. So they could and should have called those witnesses and built a case to send to the Senate. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933775867] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>OniRonin posted... </cite> <quote>this is not how the constitution works. please read about the constitutional convention</quote> So there is not. So they could and should have called those witnesses and built a case to send to the Senate. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OniRonin 02/01/20 10:05:57 AM #6:	if you don't like the constitution feel free to move to a different country --- http://boomeressentials.com/.well-known/ https://essentialboomer.guide/robots.txt #NotAllGamers #YesAllLandlords <cite>OniRonin posted [p:933776476] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>if you don't like the constitution feel free to move to a different country </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 12:26:17 PM #7:	OniRonin posted... if you don't like the constitution feel free to move to a different country This is a total dodge and you know it. Its also a lie. Theres nothing that prevented them from calling witnesses. If there is please source it. Youre not contributing anything to what should be an objective discussion. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933780915] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>OniRonin posted... </cite> <quote>if you don't like the constitution feel free to move to a different country</quote> This is a total dodge and you know it. Its also a lie. Theres nothing that prevented them from calling witnesses. If there is please source it. Youre not contributing anything to what should be an objective discussion. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 02/01/20 12:27:21 PM #8:	BeerOnTap posted... Honest question: why didn't the House call these witnesses? Contempt of congress was one of the charges for a reason. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:933780950] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>Honest question: why didn't the House call these witnesses?</quote> Contempt of congress was one of the charges for a reason. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 12:28:17 PM #9:	It really doesnt matter It is totally normal to present new testimony at a trial and the public has a right to hear from these witnesses. There is no reason this cant be a transparent process unless of course it is a cover up --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933780984] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>It really doesnt matter It is totally normal to present new testimony at a trial and the public has a right to hear from these witnesses. There is no reason this cant be a transparent process unless of course it is a cover up </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 12:32:23 PM #10:	BlackScythe0 posted... Contempt of congress was one of the charges for a reason. can you explain this further? <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933781120] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>Contempt of congress was one of the charges for a reason.</quote>can you explain this further? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 12:35:33 PM #11:	BeerOnTap posted... can you explain this further? congress is a coequal branch of government, a president cant just claim absolute immunity and blanket executive privilege in response to an investigation --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933781225] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>can you explain this further?</quote> congress is a coequal branch of government, a president cant just claim absolute immunity and blanket executive privilege in response to an investigation </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 02/01/20 12:36:57 PM #12:	BeerOnTap posted... can you explain this further? Wtf? They were refusing to cooperate with congress, what part of that is unclear? The courts have NEVER, EVER, ruled to side with assertions of executive privledge that the administration was attempting, but the court battle was going to be drug on for as long as possible. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:933781288] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>can you explain this further?</quote>Wtf? They were refusing to cooperate with congress, what part of that is unclear? The courts have NEVER, EVER, ruled to side with assertions of executive privledge that the administration was attempting, but the court battle was going to be drug on for as long as possible. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 1:32:08 PM #13:	BlackScythe0 posted... Wtf? They were refusing to cooperate with congress, what part of that is unclear? The courts have NEVER, EVER, ruled to side with assertions of executive privledge that the administration was attempting, but the court battle was going to be drug on for as long as possible. So then they would have refused to testify in the senate as well then. Thus leaving the courts to force them to testify. It would have been the same regardless of House or Senate. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933783354] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>Wtf? They were refusing to cooperate with congress, what part of that is unclear? The courts have NEVER, EVER, ruled to side with assertions of executive privledge that the administration was attempting, but the court battle was going to be drug on for as long as possible.</quote> So then they would have refused to testify in the senate as well then. Thus leaving the courts to force them to testify. It would have been the same regardless of House or Senate. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 1:36:54 PM #14:	Mead posted... congress is a coequal branch of government, a president cant just claim absolute immunity and blanket executive privilege in response to an investigation Right, so then the house should have called for Bolton to testify. I just want to make it clear that I too think the American people should have heard from Bolton. Republicans who say otherwise are partisan shills. I also think we should hear from Biden. Democrats who say otherwise are partisan shills. I also am of the opinion that this may come back to hurt the Republican senators later on. I guess time will tell. But are left-leaning/Democrat folks really not willing to admit that these witnesses should have been called in the house? Are you not disappointed in Pelosi/Schiff that they didnt push for that. Because they could have called these witnesses. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933783522] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>congress is a coequal branch of government, a president cant just claim absolute immunity and blanket executive privilege in response to an investigation</quote> Right, so then the house should have called for Bolton to testify. I just want to make it clear that I too think the American people should have heard from Bolton. Republicans who say otherwise are partisan shills. I also think we should hear from Biden. Democrats who say otherwise are partisan shills. I also am of the opinion that this may come back to hurt the Republican senators later on. I guess time will tell. But are left-leaning/Democrat folks really not willing to admit that these witnesses should have been called in the house? Are you not disappointed in Pelosi/Schiff that they didnt push for that. Because they could have called these witnesses. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 1:40:32 PM #15:	BeerOnTap posted... Right, so then the house should have called for Bolton to testify yet there is no requirement for them to have done so and no reason for the senate to go out of their way to suppress testimony beyond a cover up --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933783655] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>Right, so then the house should have called for Bolton to testify</quote> yet there is no requirement for them to have done so and no reason for the senate to go out of their way to suppress testimony beyond a cover up </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OniRonin 02/01/20 2:01:10 PM #16:	i would love to hear hunter biden testify. i don't want john bolton to testify because every action in his entire life is targeted at increasing our investments in forever wars, and anything he said would be motivated by an attempt to do that thru one avenue or another. but what you're saying is basically 'well if the prosecutors really thought this witness was important, they should have made him testify before they decided to bring the case to trial' --- http://boomeressentials.com/.well-known/ https://essentialboomer.guide/robots.txt #NotAllGamers #YesAllLandlords <cite>OniRonin posted [p:933784511] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>i would love to hear hunter biden testify. i don't want john bolton to testify because every action in his entire life is targeted at increasing our investments in forever wars, and anything he said would be motivated by an attempt to do that thru one avenue or another. but what you're saying is basically 'well if the prosecutors really thought this witness was important, they should have made him testify before they decided to bring the case to trial' </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 02/01/20 2:42:34 PM #17:	Mead posted... yet there is no requirement for them to have done so and no reason for the senate to go out of their way to suppress testimony beyond a cover up You literally say there is no requirement for the House to call the additional witnesses, then impose a requirement that the Senate MUST call the additional witnesses or else they are covering up what the House refused to investigate! You sir, are insane. Good day sir. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:933786152] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>yet there is no requirement for them to have done so and no reason for the senate to go out of their way to suppress testimony beyond a cover up</quote> You literally say there is no requirement for the House to call the additional witnesses, then impose a requirement that the Senate MUST call the additional witnesses or else they are covering up what the House refused to investigate! You sir, are insane. Good day sir. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 2:47:39 PM #18:	The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933786353] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 02/01/20 2:57:01 PM #19:	Mead posted... The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would The House doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to. But if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:933786717] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would</quote> The House doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to. But if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/01/20 2:57:23 PM #20:	A bunch of the witnesses called were blocked by Trump. Some of the relevant witnesses, like Bolton, hadn't come forward yet. The house did call in witnesses though, there's no reason the trial shouldn't have called some as well except they really like not doing their fucking jobs. --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:933786733] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>A bunch of the witnesses called were blocked by Trump. Some of the relevant witnesses, like Bolton, hadn't come forward yet. The house did call in witnesses though, there's no reason the trial shouldn't have called some as well except they really like not doing their fucking jobs. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 2:58:31 PM #21:	aDirtyShisno posted... The House doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to. But if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would. they had a ton of witnesses dude and the White House forbade many others from testifying --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933786769] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted... </cite> <quote>The House doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to. But if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would.</quote> they had a ton of witnesses dude and the White House forbade many others from testifying </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 02/01/20 3:09:08 PM #22:	Mead posted... they had a ton of witnesses dude and the White House forbade many others from testifying But not the witnesses that they are demanding the Senate call, despite the fact that they couldve called them themselves! More proof that you are literally insane. This. Is. Not. A. Judicial. Trial. The House had 17 witnesses. The Senate had 17 witnesses. The House thoroughly vetted the witnesses. The Senate has accepted the witnesses testimony as is and does not require any clarification. Both chambers had witnesses dude. Theyre the same witnesses. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:933787185] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>they had a ton of witnesses dude and the White House forbade many others from testifying</quote> But not the witnesses that they are demanding the Senate call, despite the fact that they couldve called them themselves! More proof that you are literally insane. This. Is. Not. A. Judicial. Trial. The House had 17 witnesses. The Senate had 17 witnesses. The House thoroughly vetted the witnesses. The Senate has accepted the witnesses testimony as is and does not require any clarification. Both chambers had witnesses dude. Theyre the same witnesses. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sveksii 02/01/20 3:16:11 PM #23:	Honest question: is there anyone in here that isn't trolling and is honestly stupid enough to think that they could get an answer from "the other side" that actually satisfies them or is stupid enough to think they could convince "the other side" that they are wrong? <cite>sveksii posted [p:933787439] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Honest question: is there anyone in here that isn't trolling and is honestly stupid enough to think that they could get an answer from "the other side" that actually satisfies them or is stupid enough to think they could convince "the other side" that they are wrong? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 3:16:46 PM #24:	Mead posted... The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would This exact same reasoning could be said about the House. They Could have called witnesses! Refusal to acknowledge that, and refusal to call out the House of Reps for not having done so, is really weak tea. So many folks attempting to hide the ball here and its silly. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933787468] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>The senate doesnt have to call witnesses, they arent going to but if they wanted the truth about the situation and not to just cover up what trump did, then they would</quote> This exact same reasoning could be said about the House. They Could have called witnesses! Refusal to acknowledge that, and refusal to call out the House of Reps for not having done so, is really weak tea. So many folks attempting to hide the ball here and its silly. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/01/20 3:22:26 PM #25:	sveksii posted... Honest question: is there anyone in here that isn't trolling and is honestly stupid enough to think that they could get an answer from "the other side" that actually satisfies them or is stupid enough to think they could convince "the other side" that they are wrong? No Im not trolling. It genuinely baffles my mind why left-leaning folks here arent pissed that the Dems didnt subpoena witnesses, like John Bolton or Lev Parnas for example, in the House. They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933787686] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>sveksii posted... </cite> <quote>Honest question: is there anyone in here that isn't trolling and is honestly stupid enough to think that they could get an answer from "the other side" that actually satisfies them or is stupid enough to think they could convince "the other side" that they are wrong?</quote> No Im not trolling. It genuinely baffles my mind why left-leaning folks here arent pissed that the Dems didnt subpoena witnesses, like John Bolton or Lev Parnas for example, in the House. They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/01/20 3:34:41 PM #26:	BeerOnTap posted... They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them. they should, but that doesnt change that the senate shouldnt vote for no new witnesses or testimony --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933788151] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them.</quote> they should, but that doesnt change that the senate shouldnt vote for no new witnesses or testimony </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrndNhbrHdCEman 02/01/20 4:50:54 PM #27:	Blighboy posted... A bunch of the witnesses called were blocked by Trump. Some of the relevant witnesses, like Bolton, hadn't come forward yet. The house did call in witnesses though, there's no reason the trial shouldn't have called some as well except they really like not doing their fucking jobs. --- Official nosy neighbor and gossip https://imgur.com/uGKwGsK <cite>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted [p:933791004] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>A bunch of the witnesses called were blocked by Trump. Some of the relevant witnesses, like Bolton, hadn't come forward yet. The house did call in witnesses though, there's no reason the trial shouldn't have called some as well except they really like not doing their fucking jobs.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
C-Raine 02/02/20 12:27:42 AM #28:	^Americans being American^ <cite>C-Raine posted [p:933808169] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>^Americans being American^ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 02/02/20 12:57:26 AM #29:	Mead posted... It really doesnt matter I mean, it kinda does. They knew they weren't going to get what they needed out of the republican senate. So why wouldn't they get as much dirt on him as they could out of their own hearings? Do they think the alleged Bolton testimony is not as iron clad as everyone is making it out to be? --- I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76 <cite>Smarkil posted [p:933809283] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>It really doesnt matter</quote> I mean, it kinda does. They knew they weren't going to get what they needed out of the republican senate. So why wouldn't they get as much dirt on him as they could out of their own hearings? Do they think the alleged Bolton testimony is not as iron clad as everyone is making it out to be? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/02/20 1:07:30 AM #30:	Smarkil posted... Do they think the alleged Bolton testimony is not as iron clad as everyone is making it out to be? If it isnt then why not let him speak at the trial unless of course they dont actually want to dig any deeper and find out the truth --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933809626] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Smarkil posted... </cite> <quote>Do they think the alleged Bolton testimony is not as iron clad as everyone is making it out to be?</quote> If it isnt then why not let him speak at the trial unless of course they dont actually want to dig any deeper and find out the truth </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeerOnTap 02/02/20 1:14:58 AM #31:	Mead posted... If it isnt then why not let him speak at the trial unless of course they dont actually want to dig any deeper and find out the truth Okay so lets pretend that is the case for certain: the senate is voting not to call witnesses because having Bolton or Parnas testify would be devastating to the President. That still doesnt excuse the House Dems from not going ahead and calling these witnesses. And your point completely dodges the main question of this thread. The Dems could have, should have, and heck, technically can even still, call witnesses to testify in the house if they want to. Is there nobody here willing to acknowledge that they dropped the ball? Or is partisan finger pointing more important? Because of their refusal to call witnesses in the House themselves, it allows one to safely assume that perhaps there really isnt much of a case there to begin with. <cite>BeerOnTap posted [p:933809908] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>If it isnt then why not let him speak at the trial unless of course they dont actually want to dig any deeper and find out the truth</quote> Okay so lets pretend that is the case for certain: the senate is voting not to call witnesses because having Bolton or Parnas testify would be devastating to the President. That still doesnt excuse the House Dems from not going ahead and calling these witnesses. And your point completely dodges the main question of this thread. The Dems could have, should have, and heck, technically can even still, call witnesses to testify in the house if they want to. Is there nobody here willing to acknowledge that they dropped the ball? Or is partisan finger pointing more important? Because of their refusal to call witnesses in the House themselves, it allows one to safely assume that perhaps there really isnt much of a case there to begin with. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/02/20 1:33:51 AM #32:	BeerOnTap posted... That still doesnt excuse the House Dems from not going ahead and calling these witnesses. And your point completely dodges the main question of this thread. The Dems could have, should have, and heck, technically can even still, call witnesses to testify in the house if they want to. and they should they should also have relevant witnesses testify at the impeachment trial. If trump didnt do anything wrong lets cement that so that everyone knows it and its clear what the rules are for future presidents. --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:933810493] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>That still doesnt excuse the House Dems from not going ahead and calling these witnesses. And your point completely dodges the main question of this thread. The Dems could have, should have, and heck, technically can even still, call witnesses to testify in the house if they want to.</quote> and they should they should also have relevant witnesses testify at the impeachment trial. If trump didnt do anything wrong lets cement that so that everyone knows it and its clear what the rules are for future presidents. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 02/02/20 1:48:27 AM #33:	BeerOnTap posted... No Im not trolling. It genuinely baffles my mind why left-leaning folks here arent pissed that the Dems didnt subpoena witnesses, like John Bolton or Lev Parnas for example, in the House. They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them. Because that would basically be saying that the House, which is in majority Democrat, failed at its job. Have you seen the lefties on this board? Entertaining the very notion that Democrats failed at ANYTHING is basically blasphemy. Everything is about "DRUMPFFFFFFF!!!" The house has done JACK SHIT for the last 2 years, and are still accomplishing nothing. Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity. --- SJW logic : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EN3SXTXUYAAA1Ap.jpg:large <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:933810884] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>No Im not trolling. It genuinely baffles my mind why left-leaning folks here arent pissed that the Dems didnt subpoena witnesses, like John Bolton or Lev Parnas for example, in the House. They could have, and they should have. They literally could do it right now if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them.</quote> Because that would basically be saying that the House, which is in majority Democrat, failed at its job. Have you seen the lefties on this board? Entertaining the very notion that Democrats failed at ANYTHING is basically blasphemy. Everything is about "DRUMPFFFFFFF!!!" The house has done JACK SHIT for the last 2 years, and are still accomplishing nothing. Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil69Leo 02/02/20 2:12:50 AM #34:	Why would you bring in the Bidens? Literally nothing to do with the case other than being the targets of Trump doing illegal actions. The_tall_midget posted... Because that would basically be saying that the House, which is in majority Democrat, failed at its job. Have you seen the lefties on this board? Entertaining the very notion that Democrats failed at ANYTHING is basically blasphemy. Everything is about "DRUMPFFFFFFF!!!" The house has done JACK SHIT for the last 2 years, and are still accomplishing nothing. Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity. Bolton and Parnas have already stated everything all over TV. There is ample evidence of a crime committed. If the Senate actually did their job instead of being partisan it would be a impeachment. Instead they choose party over country. <cite>Lil69Leo posted [p:933811572] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>Why would you bring in the Bidens? Literally nothing to do with the case other than being the targets of Trump doing illegal actions. The_tall_midget posted... </cite> <quote>Because that would basically be saying that the House, which is in majority Democrat, failed at its job. Have you seen the lefties on this board? Entertaining the very notion that Democrats failed at ANYTHING is basically blasphemy. Everything is about "DRUMPFFFFFFF!!!" The house has done JACK SHIT for the last 2 years, and are still accomplishing nothing. Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity.</quote> Bolton and Parnas have already stated everything all over TV. There is ample evidence of a crime committed. If the Senate actually did their job instead of being partisan it would be a impeachment. Instead they choose party over country. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil69Leo 02/02/20 2:14:27 AM #35:	The_tall_midget posted... Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity. The house built a case of impeachment. A solid enough one to impeach based on basically every constitutional lawyer, there was and is no need to pile on when the Senate is not being the oversight it's supposed to be. <cite>Lil69Leo posted [p:933811610] in Honest que... [t:78374820]...</cite> <quote>The_tall_midget posted... </cite> <quote>Anyone with any sanity would have no issue admitting that the House's work was fucking pathetic, but like I said... that requires sanity.</quote> The house built a case of impeachment. A solid enough one to impeach based on basically every constitutional lawyer, there was and is no need to pile on when the Senate is not being the oversight it's supposed to be. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Honest question: why didn't the House call these witnesses? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Honest question: why didn't the House call these witnesses?