That Impeachment Thing....

#ArrestRandPaul

Or at least make him get a haircut or do something about that god awful perm.

There is no doubt that the right wing twiterverse says its him. It still hasn't been proved.

I wonder what Q has to say on the subject....

Right winger my hockey team could use one of those.

Or this salaciousness of the Republican Senators having their questions written by the defense counsel

https://mobile.twitter.com/Nuchnibi/status/1223033384127074306

Looks somebody’s phone made it into the room and caught some footage. Then used Tik Tok of all social media services. That’s Double Trouble.

It's on the internet, it must be true!

When Trump is acquitted what excuses will the Democrats make ?

The Russians probably hacked the trial.

His name was outed awhile back, the Drudge Report dug up his name on some stuff and put it out there. He really doesn't have any special legal protections, wrong type of "whistle blower".

But hey guys say it with me

Democrats Good
Republicans Bad
Orange Man REALLY REALLY BAD

Like I asked, quote what I stated then. I listed specific examples of things that happened, that deserved to be looked into.

"We should be able to call more witnesses." "Except the whistleblower whom actually started the whole thing, or anyone else WE choose to not be able to testify."

I cannot think of a single court system in this country, that has ever denied the defendant the opportunity to face his/her accuser in trial.

This is America I can believe whatever the hell I want. And no Englishmen is going to tell me otherwise !

If they already know the outcome why all the bitching and moaning. Just vote already.

That works for criminal courts. This is not a criminal proceeding.

But if you are saying Trump is a criminal and should be tried in a criminal proceeding, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Lamar Alexander's (R-Tennessee) statements in the last 24hrs are "enlightening" about the GoP's current stance.


Republican Senators don't want to remove him (understandable for any President), but yet acknowledge the inappropriateness of his actions and that the Democrats have proven their case sufficiently.

It's an interesting way of saying were voting party line we know he did it but it's an election year so "what difference does it make".

I fail to see how that is a problem for Fone.

It's the 2020 Democrat campaign strategy, "vote for anyone except Trump". They can't field a decent candidate, and with the economy booming under President Trump there isn't much hope of them swaying swing voters. People can *** and moan about social issues all day, but ultimately it's money in the bank that drives peoples vote. President Trumps's entire campaign will be based on economy success along with job and wealth creation. American is in the best economic shape it's been in for a long time, especially among the working and middle class.

Apparently somebody in this forum doesn't know the economy is down turning since August 2019. Deficit is high and production is contracting. Forced retirements and layoffs are occurring all across the manufacturing sector. Positions being left empty.

Coal miners have been getting laid off in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Wyoming due to Revelation Energy and Blackjewel Coal Co. filing Chapter 11. Workers who are owed between 2-6k in back wages are blocking rail lines...

Those are the "forgotten people" if they're voting with their wallets, I wouldn't be to cocksure that they're in the bag if I was a GoP strategist.

The forgotten people are the 5 people here on FFXIAH.

Who needs evidence when you can just make up ***as you go along like the Democrats.

I don't know what abuse of power is but I'm sure Trump is the only President to ever do that.

What else is new.

But to claim that there is “no evidence” of Ciaramella being the whistleblower is a lie. There is also evidence against Trump. You’re still hung up on the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is a very low bar. Proof is a very high bar. Both sides of an argument can present evidence that supports contradictory conclusions. It’s a largely subjective matter that is given structure in the law to reduce chaos. In a public forum, literally anyone can say, “I believe that the evidence is sufficient to support my conclusions.” Anyone else can say, “I believe that the evidence says the exact opposite.” And guess what? It’s completely irrelevant because it’s just opinion, but we debate this crap because it’s fun.

Trump is on trial based largely on hearsay evidence in a nation where there are laws, rules, and judges that dictate what is and and is not admissible as evidence. Generally speaking, hearsay is a weak legal argument that rarely results in convictions on its own. Your own personal interpretation of the facts and whether or not they constitute sufficient proof is your own opinion, so whether or not hearsay is enough for you personally is pure opinion and subject to zero laws. I have no problem with that, but I will debate it. Eric Ciaramella is not on trial, so he falls under the latter category exclusively.

This has got to be the most ignorant and uneducated mentality of the right in general.

If I overheard 2 people discussing how they murdered someone, I would feel obligated as a citizen to report to the police what I heard, leaving it in their hands to investigate and determine any wrong doing. If it turned out a murder was committed and it went to trial, I wouldn't called as a witness...because I didn't witness anything, and that certainly doesn't make me their "accuser."

Such basic common sense can be so elusive to some.

until democratic candidates stop calling everyone racist, sexist, and homophobic, I’m going to vote for whom ever they hate the most. Trump2020 ***.

What? No, you could absolutely be called as a witness if the judge allows it. It wouldn’t make for a very good case on its own, but if the details you overheard match physical evidence that the police found, then that adds considerable weight to your testimony and a prosecutor would love to use it.