ALGAYDO 35,118 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, FATCAT said: No, it's obstruction of congress, aka the 2nd article of impeachment. So, theoretically, can’t the republicans get into legal trouble over their refusal to allow key witnesses to testify? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, LateToCult said: No. But Nancy is just about the only person who can do anything about it at this point. Im confused, if its illegal, why are Republicans allowed to not allow them to testify? It should not even be negotiable, its should be expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, ALGAYDO said: So, theoretically, can’t the republicans get into legal trouble over their refusal to allow key witnesses to testify? There's a difference, so if congress (House or Senate) subpoenas members of Trump's Admin. they are compelled to testify, and not doing so is Obstruction of congress. In the case that Republicans in the Senate don't allow for any witnesses, as congress they are technically the deciders for what is obstruction or not. If they don't call for these witnesses, then there's actually no obstruction. 1 minute ago, Faysalaaa said: Im confused, if its illegal, why are Republicans allowed to not allow them to testify? It should not even be negotiable, its should be expected. It should be expected, as most trials that have first hand witnesses are usually compelled to be apart of the trial. Hopefully the few Republican senators is states with shaky support (like Maine) may vote for witnesses to be apart of the trial even though they may still acquit in the end. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 41,857 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said: Im confused, if its illegal, why are Republicans allowed to not allow them to testify? It should not even be negotiable, its should be expected. Because laws have always been interpreted differently. We see it as obstruction of justice, they do not or will not. The senate has the power to set up the trial so the quickest way to resolve this is bargaining directly with them. Even if they wanted to make this into a huge legal issue that would take years and would probably not accomplish anything. I also want to say that there are a lot of people on here who think to impeach or not to impeach was a win or lose situation for trump. As in if Dems didn’t impeach they would magically win the 2020 election. Trump has always had the ability to gain from both circumstances. You’re fooling yourself if you thought that he couldn’t spin not getting impeached into another rallying cry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, LateToCult said: Because laws have always been interpreted differently. We see it as obstruction of justice, they do not or will not. The senate has the power to set up the trial so the quickest way to resolve this is bargaining directly with them. Even if they wanted to make this into a huge legal issue that would take years and would probably not accomplish anything. I also want to say that there are a lot of people on here who think to impeach or not to impeach was a win or lose situation for trump. As in if Dems didn’t impeach they would magically win the 2020 election. Trump has always had the ability to gain from both circumstances. You’re fooling yourself if you thought that he couldn’t spin not getting impeached into another rallying cry. Yeah im for impeachment, my only disagreement is what they impeached him on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 41,857 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said: Yeah im for impeachment, my only disagreement is what they impeached him on That’s fair. I personally do think Dems have enough to justify impeachment here. But that’s my own opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,545 Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 So Tulsi voted present (a non-vote) on impeachment and Andrew Yang said he'd pardon Trump if elected. Can we officially call these two cancelled? Whimsical bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealJT 2,291 Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, PartySick said: So Tulsi voted present (a non-vote) on impeachment and Andrew Yang said he'd pardon Trump if elected. Can we officially call these two cancelled? What was Yang’s reasoning? I feel like you are quoting him without context Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, PartySick said: So Tulsi voted present (a non-vote) on impeachment and Andrew Yang said he'd pardon Trump if elected. Can we officially call these two cancelled? Eww... Daddy Yang really said that? "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,545 Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said: What was Yang’s reasoning? I feel like you are quoting him without context Is there a legit reason to pardon him? Whimsical bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealJT 2,291 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 52 minutes ago, PartySick said: Is there a legit reason to pardon him? Can you at least post a receipt? I can’t imagine him just saying “I’m going to pardon trump” and nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,545 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said: Can you at least post a receipt? I can’t imagine him just saying “I’m going to pardon trump” and nothing else. Saw it here^ Whimsical bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill 31,812 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 On 12/19/2019 at 7:18 PM, Faysalaaa said: Is it even legal to not allow them to testify? My God, Mitch McConnell literally said, verbatim, that he didn't plan on carrying a fair trial. So there's that. And I think that's enough of a reason lol. Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealJT 2,291 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, PartySick said: Saw it here^ I just watched the clip where he says it. Honestly his reasoning is pretty dumb. It’s not like he is going to be the nominee anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Ok its been confirmed that Trump is not officially impeached!!! like I said, its only considered impeachement when Pelosi sends it to the senate. So I was right all along and people were correcting me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.