Wrong. But not surprising since you haven’t watched the trial. For example, Vindman says Burisma was specifically mentioned even though it doesn’t appear in the “transcript.”Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Printable View
Wrong. But not surprising since you haven’t watched the trial. For example, Vindman says Burisma was specifically mentioned even though it doesn’t appear in the “transcript.”Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
This fake trial will be over by Wednesday and Trump can get back to making the country great again.
A fake trial only if there is no witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
What about all the iron clad, irrefutable, overwhelming testimony and evidence already compiled?
Like the one Dem's Adam Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi conducted not allowing Trump lawyer's witnesses and replies/rebutals? It was a one sided attempted lynching or beheading like the old deep south, Russia, China or Iran. You sir, are so hypocritical on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Remember Corey Lewandowski. The democrats were going to get dirt on Trump through his testimony. How did that work out? Bolton's book has already been reviewed by whitehouse lawyers. This could also be a way of getting Hunter Biden to testify.
Do the Republicans agree that it is ironclad? If they have questions about it, they should call witnesses. That is what you do at every other trial and in every other impeachment trial there has ever been.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
That wasn’t a trial. That was a probable cause hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Defendants NEVER call witnesses at those. And Democrats just followed the rules that the Republicans made for calling witnesses at this impeachment hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No you are wrong... Vindman said under oath that while the "transcript" is not exactly what was said on the call, that it did not misrepresent anything that was said.
Good grief! :icon_roll:
He said that he tried to edit the transcript of the call to note the word "Burisma" but it didn't make it into the rough transcript released publicly. He doesn't know why. He didn’t think the omission was “significant” at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Volker testified that he didn’t know Burisma meant Biden at the time. He said “In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.”
WOW!!! Pam Bondi just took Joe Biden out of the democrat presidential race. Biden had the prosecutor fired that was investigating Burisma. Ken Vogel was right. The corruption was much deeper than anyone expected. I don't think we're going to see any witnesses. The democrats definitely don't want Hunter Biden as a witness.
Here's Pam Bondi's speech about the corruption of Hunter and Joe Biden in Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPvMuzyVOig
Dumbest speech so far. “We would prefer not to be talking about this.” Not sure a more bold faced lie has ever been told in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
The worst thing about her speech is that Biden thinks he did no wrong. Do we want a president that's that corrupt and stupid? Trump had every right to investigate this corruption. Case closed!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp