Nah. Bipartisan is the correct term here.
(Intellectually superior! )
So what are you trying to argue?
Nah. Bipartisan is the correct term here.
(Intellectually superior! )
They put together a solid case despite Trump's stonewalling. It would be weird to have a trial without the testimony of those directly involved, though.
Nope.
Are you claiming they are biased?
Yes or no.
Yep.
They are objective as they want to be
What is your proof of this?
My guess is you never heard of them before today.
you drunk ass i'm not arguing, you said
Nothing you said here connects with my post that you quoted.
Take a day off Spurstalk, sober up, it's ok.
The witnesses were called before the vote.
What part do you not understand?
drunk ass what part don't you understand? I never said they weren't called.
Not before they had already called witnesses.
OH MY GOD... your reading comprehensive is terrible. Winehole said I made the claim that "Dems did a bad job". My answer was "No dems already voted to impeach".
You even left out the part where I said "If they need more witnesses" Which means I already know they called witness. https://aa.org/ they can help you.
comprehensive... now I may be drunk.
Awesome timing, seems so impartial, on the eve of the senate trial. Crazy timing, what are the chances?
Their “finding” is also incorrect because the president is allowed to withhold foreign aid for policy priorities at his discretion, for a period of time, without approval from Congress.
that isn't evidence of partisan bias
If he dies, he dies
So calling for any witnesses in any case means you have a bad case?
backflipping rubes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)