View Poll Results: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Only surprise was Nervous Nancy sending the articles

    0 0%
  • No

    2 28.57%
  • Yes, but only small stuff

    3 42.86%
  • Yes, something major

    1 14.29%
  • THERE WILL BE BLOOD

    1 14.29%
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 112

Thread: Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

  1. #31
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,845
    Amen (Given)
    6472
    Amen (Received)
    12358
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Well, being one of those ultra righties yourself, of course you would deny reality, and acuse the other of being divorced from it. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You aren't all so dumb as to not be able to put two and two together, or to not know that in a real trial, if the truth is the goal, then relevant witnesses and documentary evidence are admissable and necessary. You have all made it clear, that the truth isn't what you seek. So, against all the evidence to the contrary, you are defending a rogue president over your country, possibly because it was you who put him there in the first place. If it's just pride, then overcome your pride, and admit to facts when you see them instead of making excuses, or rationalizations for them in your own head.
    Aww, idn't 'e precious?
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  2. #32
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,825
    Amen (Given)
    5229
    Amen (Received)
    22942
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    The constitution specifies that the Senators during an impeachment trial are to take an oath of impartiality, in a way that House members are not required to when deciding whether to pass articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.
    So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all? To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?

    It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial? Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial, they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
    Last edited by Sparko; 01-21-2020 at 12:23 PM.

  3. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  4. #33
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,214
    Amen (Given)
    2793
    Amen (Received)
    1768
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all?
    Constitutionally, yes. The constitution requires the Senate to take an oath of impartiality, not the House.

    This is because the system is modeled on a police criminal investigation and prosecution. It's the responsibility of an impartial court to decide the truth, not to the policemen doing the investigating. The various rights to a fair trial apply to the court proceedings, not to the investigation which proceeds it. In the same manner, the constitution gives freedom to the House, but has requirements of the Senate to be impartial. You can personally dislike the way the constitution organizes this if you like, but perhaps you should pretend to respect the constitution like Republicans try to trick people into thinking they do?

    To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?
    Neither is true. The Republicans called witnesses and they cross examined Dem witnesses.

    It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial?
    Yes, because the House investigative committees weren't the court, they were the equivalent of a police interrogation room. The constitutional setup is that the Senate is the court. The Chief Justice from SCOTUS is presiding and the constitution specifies that senators are to take an oath of impartiality.

    Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial,
    I'm sure they'd settle for one. I would like one.

    they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
    They certainly want their key witnesses to be heard. Nothing, of course, stops Republicans bringing additional witnesses they deem relevant or exculpatory as they are controlling proceedings.

  5. #34
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,825
    Amen (Given)
    5229
    Amen (Received)
    22942
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Constitutionally, yes. The constitution requires the Senate to take an oath of impartiality, not the House.

    This is because the system is modeled on a police criminal investigation and prosecution. It's the responsibility of an impartial court to decide the truth, not to the policemen doing the investigating. The various rights to a fair trial apply to the court proceedings, not to the investigation which proceeds it. In the same manner, the constitution gives freedom to the House, but has requirements of the Senate to be impartial. You can personally dislike the way the constitution organizes this if you like, but perhaps you should pretend to respect the constitution like Republicans try to trick people into thinking they do?

    Neither is true. The Republicans called witnesses and they cross examined Dem witnesses.

    Yes, because the House investigative committees weren't the court, they were the equivalent of a police interrogation room. The constitutional setup is that the Senate is the court. The Chief Justice from SCOTUS is presiding and the constitution specifies that senators are to take an oath of impartiality.

    I'm sure they'd settle for one. I would like one.

    They certainly want their key witnesses to be heard. Nothing, of course, stops Republicans bringing additional witnesses they deem relevant or exculpatory as they are controlling proceedings.
    Wow. smh.

    No, it is not "modeled on a police investigation," Star. Where do you get this stuff?

  6. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  7. #35
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,214
    Amen (Given)
    2793
    Amen (Received)
    1768
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Wow. smh.

    No, it is not "modeled on a police investigation," Star. Where do you get this stuff?
    Wow, are you that ignorant of the basics? Makes me wonder how many other conservatives have no clue about what's happening.

    Impeachment articles are the equivalent of bringing an indictment in criminal law, essentially being a statement of charges. That's the model this all works on. Now that the charges have been filed by the House investigation, there is a court proceeding in the Senate. That's how an impeachment works.

  8. #36
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,825
    Amen (Given)
    5229
    Amen (Received)
    22942
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Wow, are you that ignorant of the basics? Makes me wonder how many other conservatives have no clue about what's happening.

    Impeachment articles are the equivalent of bringing an indictment in criminal law, essentially being a statement of charges. That's the model this all works on. Now that the charges have been filed by the House investigation, there is a court proceeding in the Senate. That's how an impeachment works.
    You said "police investigation"

    Indictments happen AFTER a police investigation and an arrest. And yes police investigations have to be fair and impartial and based on actual evidence. As do indictments.

  9. #37
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,892
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all? To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?

    It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial? Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial, they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
    It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.

  10. #38
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,825
    Amen (Given)
    5229
    Amen (Received)
    22942
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.
    Did you even watch the proceedings????

  11. #39
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,990
    Amen (Given)
    6100
    Amen (Received)
    7457
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.
    Talk about proving the impact of propaganda.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. Amen One Bad Pig amen'd this post.
  13. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,892
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Did you even watch the proceedings????
    Yes, and I watched the entire opening arguments yesterday as well when the presidents council continued that blatant lie about the House proceedings in front of the chief Justice. If you honestly believe that the republicans were shut out from the House proceedings, that they couldn't call and question witnesses, that Trump and his lawyers were shut out from the process, then you are just wrong and have fallen for the lies that claimed they were.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •