[rktman]

I’m sure my two senators will vote for that. NOT! No doubt hairy screed already gave them their direction.

[jonascord]

They weren't voting for witnesses because there was honest doubt. They were letting their hatred for Trump and HIS Constitution spill out.

These traitors believe that, once they overthrow the non-Communist government, by successfully discarding an election by the proles, that, since they are at the top of the elite sh!theap, they are assured of seats on the Central Soviet.

[EasySt]

Just waiting to see all the hard core Corruptocrat Senators self identify as
hard core Corruptocrats with their votes.

They may come to wish they had voted American instead, as self
identifying as a hard core Corruptocrat may soon be going out of style.

[Bitman]

You are trying to make a logical argument to people that only act on their feelings. Good luck.

[Political Junkie Too]

The liberal argument is that he's guilty, and that is proven by the fact that they're being blocked from looking under that next rock for the evidence they're sure is there.

-PJ

[Repeal The 17th]

Welcome to freerepubic, yada, yada, yada.

[FreedBird]

They were part of a coup. The Dems. want to keep the coup going.

[EC Washington]

Dim witted Patty Murray was on camera last week - she had a completely blank look on her face. She will do as she is told.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Dem ^ALL Senators Must Vote Acquittal

. . . since nothing impeachable was alleged in the articles.

Granted that Joe Biden hasn’t been convicted of anything, and therefore is presumed innocent - but the question is whether it was absurd to suggest that corruption was at the bottom of Biden’s “six hours to fire the prosecutor” videotaped statement.

. . . and it certainly was no more absurd than the “Steele dossier."

[Leaning Right]

> A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. <

That is a time-honored rule for criminal trials. But an impeachment is not a criminal or even a civil trial. It is a political process.

[Uncle Sham]

This is actually a VERY good argument and one that should be pushed between now and the acquittal vote. Those who voted for more new witnesses should be questioned about their need for additional testimony if indeed the House made it’s case. The fact that there was a yes vote by someone for more new witnesses would say to me that there was an element of doubt rather than certainty of how they viewed the evidence presented so far. Good job!

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Good point. By voting for more witnesses, they are admitting the House didn’t prove its case.

[SuperLuminal]

Any communist who votes for acquittal will be interred at Fort Marcy Park before the end of 2020...

[Tudorfly]

Now, now. Being rational does not apply. These are democrats we are discussing...and dem-lites Romney and Collins. Thus, we must not expect rational reasoning. Liberalism is a mental disease.

[Texas Eagle]

All you have to know that demonicRATS are full of carp about the need to hear from more witnesses is that they only invoked the testimony of 17 of the 18 people they deposed.

Who was the 18th?

Word on the street is it was Schiff-faced daughter's boyfriend, Eric Ciamerella.

[deport]

Welcome to FR. Why don’t you jump in and participate on a few threads?