“why would an innocent man bar witnesses who could exonerate him” from testifying in the Senate’s impeachment trial? The question Mark Hamill says we should ask ourselves.

eden

The question Mark Hamill says we should ask ourselves.

JW

eden wrote:

The question Mark Hamill says we should ask ourselves.

The answer that Hamill apparently doesn't understand:

The President all by himself is the Constitutional equal of the entire Congress and the entire judiciary. To maintain that power for the office requires that the President not bow to the Congress unless the Supreme Court and the Congress both agree that he must submit. By itself, the Congress has no authority over the President.

That, by the way is why he has gone to court and why the Democrats won't wait for the court to decide the issue. They know they are going to lose.

Question for you; do you regard second rate actors as valid sources regarding P**********l impeachments?

PeterS

JW wrote:

The answer that Hamill apparently doesn't understa... (show quote)

You didn't answer the question, why would an innocent man hold back witnesses who could exonerate him? The answer is, he wouldn't, not if he were innocent.

As for your interpretation of an all-powerful president--I think you and he are probably the only ones who hold that opinion--why would the house have the power to impeach if the president was more powerful than they were?

eden

JW wrote:

The answer that Hamill apparently doesn't understa... (show quote)

Question for you; why do you segue off at a tangent about P**********l powers ( and you are wrong anyway) and not answer the question posed. It is immaterial who posed the question.
Just answer directly the question posed. No stalling. No obfuscation. No what aboutisms.
Just provide an answer ...if you dare.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

eden wrote:

The question Mark Hamill says we should ask ourselves.

Who cares what Mark Hamill says?

Move the impeachment papers across and we will go from there, we will call out witnesses....and yours

.....and that's exactly why there will be no witnesses, the prog collusion and lies will pour out like water from a sieve .

Careful what you wish for, you aint gonna like it.

eden

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Who cares what Mark Hamill says?

Move the impeachment papers across and we will go from there, we will call out witnesses....and yours

.....and that's exactly why there will be no witnesses, the prog collusion and lies will pour out like water from a sieve .

Careful what you wish for, you aint gonna like it.

You didn’t answer the question. Go back and read it again and give it a shot.

PeterS

eden wrote:

Question for you; why do you segue off at a tangent about P**********l powers ( and you are wrong anyway) and not answer the question posed. It is immaterial who posed the question.
Just answer directly the question posed. No stalling. No obfuscation. No what aboutisms.
Just provide an answer ...if you dare.

The question posed is why would an innocent man hold back witnesses who could exonerate him. And I did provide the answer--he is guilty which is the only reason for withholding witnesses...

As for your red herring, I have no desire to run around in circles trying to answer a question posed in the constitution. If a president is as all-powerful as you seem to think then there could be no means to impeach them thus no reason to include the clause in the constitution. But it is included which tells us the Congress holds the final sayso over the president--whether one branch is willing to do their job or not is irrelevant.

PeterS

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Who cares what Mark Hamill says?

Move the impeachment papers across and we will go from there, we will call out witnesses....and yours

.....and that's exactly why there will be no witnesses, the prog collusion and lies will pour out like water from a sieve .

Careful what you wish for, you aint gonna like it.

And why will there be no witnesses? Just call Bolton and have him explain what he meant by Rudy putting together a "drug deal." Then call the CBO who knew they were doing something illegal. Ask them why they thought that. There is a reason that Trump blocked everyone from speaking and it's not because they could clear him but together or by themselves, they could boot him out of office...

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

eden wrote:

You didn’t answer the question. Go back and read it again and give it a shot.

Due to the fact you rabid libs would go all chestnut, like you do no matter who or what.

why would a person subject themselves to the hassle you would be giving them? putting out their addresses , phone numbers.......your team of r****rs would be in front of their houses acting the fool as usual.

Is that enough reasons Eden? in short......your team is made up of a bunch of punk ass kids that are unable to show restraint on any issue.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

PeterS wrote:

And why will there be no witnesses? Just call Bolton and have him explain what he meant by Rudy putting together a "drug deal." Then call the CBO who knew they were doing something illegal. Ask them why they thought that. There is a reason that Trump blocked everyone from speaking and it's not because they could clear him but together or by themselves, they could boot him out of office...

Because we would be calling the likes of shiff, Nadler, comey...etc

the corruption on your side in this is obvious to everyone but you die hard progs.....Pelosi, as much as I dislike the hag she is far too smart for that.........why has she not submitted to the senate yet?

this was a dog and pony show for the fringe piles of dooky that make up your party, nothing more.

Lonewolf

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Because we would be calling the likes of shiff, Nadler, comey...etc

the corruption on your side in this is obvious to everyone but you die hard progs.....Pelosi, as much as I dislike the hag she is far too smart for that.........why has she not submitted to the senate yet?

this was a dog and pony show for the fringe piles of dooky that make up your party, nothing more.

No matter what our crimes are it has no bearing on trumps prosecution !

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

Lonewolf wrote:

No matter what our crimes are it has no bearing on trumps prosecution !

Yea...Yea they do.

You cannot condemn one when you did not care about the other because it was your team.

Your crimes are many, as are ours.........you are dishonest as they come if you cannot see that.

eden

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Due to the fact you rabid libs would go all chestnut, like you do no matter who or what.

why would a person subject themselves to the hassle you would be giving them? putting out their addresses , phone numbers.......your team of r****rs would be in front of their houses acting the fool as usual.

Is that enough reasons Eden? in short......your team is made up of a bunch of punk ass kids that are unable to show restraint on any issue.

What “team” is that?

PeterS

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Due to the fact you rabid libs would go all chestnut, like you do no matter who or what.

why would a person subject themselves to the hassle you would be giving them? putting out their addresses , phone numbers.......your team of r****rs would be in front of their houses acting the fool as usual.

Is that enough reasons Eden? in short......your team is made up of a bunch of punk ass kids that are unable to show restraint on any issue.

We had 13 witnesses crossover and appear before the house and not a single address or phone number was put out. BTW, isn't that the reason you want to know who the whistleblower so you can demean and denigrate them in any way you can?

If Trump was innocent he would allow people to speak and documents to be read. That he won't tell us all we need to know about his innocence--or lack thereof...

PeterS

Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:

Yea...Yea they do.

You cannot condemn one when you did not care about the other because it was your team.

Your crimes are many, as are ours.........you are dishonest as they come if you cannot see that.

No, they don't. That's called a red herring and is being presented solely to get people to look in areas other than the president. Trump is the one being put on trial. Only witnesses relevant to that trial are to be questioned. Simply because Trump wants to point his finger at Biden doesn't mean that Biden is guilty of anything nor that he should appear as a red herring in Trump's Kangaroo court. You guys have had 5 years to investigate Biden (two that he could have been impeached) and his son yet you only seem to have any interest when Biden is Trump's principal challenger. That sounds more like the definition of a witchhunt than it does a legitimate investigation to determine the t***h.