(01-27-2020, 05:24 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 04:49 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.

You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go.  You know that, right?

---

(01-27-2020, 05:12 PM)jj82284 Wrote: The statements of the ukrainians exculpate the president of the current charges.  If you charge him with murdering someone whose still demonstrably alive then theres no evidence that can trump the guys pulse.  

Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.

(01-27-2020, 05:40 PM)Gabe Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 05:30 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The Dems lost the right to call witnesses after the original charges are presented because of the Kavanaugh debacle. Mitch should be firm in refusing to allow the Dems to call additional witnesses to fabricate lies like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Like the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

MB, I have no doubt your ire for the Kavanaugh hearings, you've clearly & eloquently stated it before. I understand and can appreciate that perspective. I, like Brett, like beer too. 

But the latter part of your statement leads to another question: Do you believe the witnesses democrats want to call would fabricate lies?