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 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 112

Thread: Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

  1. #21
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,278
    Amen (Given)
    2801
    Amen (Received)
    1770
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    The Dems will be very surprised when Trump isn't removed from office.
    Do you seriously think any Dems actually believe that Republican Senators will honor their constitutional oath to have an impartial trial? McConnell's already said he won't hold to that oath. Republicans don't give two figs about their oaths or the constitution, they'll just support their own party above all else, and everyone knows it.

    The Republican Senate will just vote to acquit and that will be that.

  2. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,027
    Amen (Given)
    325
    Amen (Received)
    775
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Do you seriously think any Dems actually believe that Republican Senators will honor their constitutional oath to have an impartial trial? McConnell's already said he won't hold to that oath. Republicans don't give two figs about their oaths or the constitution, they'll just support their own party above all else, and everyone knows it.

    The Republican Senate will just vote to acquit and that will be that.
    wouldn't that be a horrible unexpected outcome of something that has started as a totally partisan ploy?

  3. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Do you seriously think any Dems actually believe that Republican Senators will honor their constitutional oath to have an impartial trial? McConnell's already said he won't hold to that oath. Republicans don't give two figs about their oaths or the constitution, they'll just support their own party above all else, and everyone knows it.

    The Republican Senate will just vote to acquit and that will be that.
    And the ultra righties on this site know that, and are all for it, as is made obvious by their arguments to keep the relevant evidence out. They don't want to take a chance and possibly be faced with the ugly truth. Although mostly I think they already know the ugly truth, but their party is more important to them than is the Constitution, their country or democracy itself.

  4. #24
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,931
    Amen (Given)
    6487
    Amen (Received)
    12394
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And the ultra righties on this site know that, and are all for it, as is made obvious by their arguments to keep the relevant evidence out. They don't want to take a chance and possibly be faced with the ugly truth. Although mostly I think they already know the ugly truth, but their party is more important to them than is the Constitution, their country or democracy itself.
    Any time you spout rhetoric this divorced from reality, it seems to be when even you realize you've got nothing better to stand on than to hope your interlocutors get ticked off and write angry replies back.

    You're cute when you get all wild-eyed, Jim.
    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. Ė 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

  5. #25
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Any time you spout rhetoric this divorced from reality, it seems to be when even you realize you've got nothing better to stand on than to hope your interlocutors get ticked off and write angry replies back.

    You're cute when you get all wild-eyed, Jim.
    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.
    Last edited by JimL; 01-18-2020 at 07:53 PM.

  6. #26
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,373
    Amen (Given)
    1181
    Amen (Received)
    20680
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Do you seriously think any Dems actually believe that Republican Senators will honor their constitutional oath to have an impartial trial? McConnell's already said he won't hold to that oath. Republicans don't give two figs about their oaths or the constitution, they'll just support their own party above all else, and everyone knows it.
    Funny how nobody on the left seemed concerned about the House holding impartial hearings. IIRC half the Democrats on the two committees had said they supported impeachment well before the hearings (with some like Mad Max[ine] Waters vocally calling for it before he was even sworn in). They take an oath to uphold the constitution as well you know. But that was okay because (say it with me everyone)... TRUMP!!!1! smiley fist shake.gif smiley fist shake.gif

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  7. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #27
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,373
    Amen (Given)
    1181
    Amen (Received)
    20680
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And the ultra righties on this site know that, and are all for it, as is made obvious by their arguments to keep the relevant evidence out. They don't want to take a chance and possibly be faced with the ugly truth. Although mostly I think they already know the ugly truth, but their party is more important to them than is the Constitution, their country or democracy itself.
    Had breakfast with my lawyer about a week ago. His firm is handling a lawsuit for me though he himself is one of the top criminal lawyers in the region[1]. He's no fan of Trump's calling him President Oompa-Loompa but did remark on the Democrat's demands for witnesses to testify now that they weren't all that interested in testifying before the House.

    As he put it, if the Democrats really thought that they had an "overwhelming" case the last thing they would want to do was call more witnesses since they would be wildcards that would far more likely weaken their case than bolster it. If the case was truly "overwhelming" as they claim you would be a fool to tamper with it, but if OTOH you realize that it is full of holes then and only then would you bring in folks who you do not know what they'll say when they testify.

    It all goes back to the old adage about only an imprudent lawyer asks questions of a witness that the lawyer doesn't already know the answers to.





    1. We've been friends since the 80s and he's always said I was one of his favorite clients because I never did anything that made his job harder. The last time I required his services was over 25 years ago and I had to ask for a continuance because he was busy with a murder case in another county that day (mine was a pretty minor misdemeanor). When I was applying for it with the prosecutor and a court clerk they asked for the name of my attorney and their shocked reaction was priceless when I gave it to them. They were expecting one of the ambulance chasers that were handling everyone's else minor cases not a top flight lawyer. All of a sudden they started treating me with respect as a result

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  9. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #28
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Had breakfast with my lawyer about a week ago. His firm is handling a lawsuit for me though he himself is one of the top criminal lawyers in the region[1]. He's no fan of Trump's calling him President Oompa-Loompa but did remark on the Democrat's demands for witnesses to testify now that they weren't all that interested in testifying before the House.

    As he put it, if the Democrats really thought that they had an "overwhelming" case the last thing they would want to do was call more witnesses since they would be wildcards that would far more likely weaken their case than bolster it. If the case was truly "overwhelming" as they claim you would be a fool to tamper with it, but if OTOH you realize that it is full of holes then and only then would you bring in folks who you do not know what they'll say when they testify.

    It all goes back to the old adage about only an imprudent lawyer asks questions of a witness that the lawyer doesn't already know the answers to.
    Yes, well, the problem for the republicans is that, just like the president who blocked all witnesses and documents, they do know what the answers will be, and they won't be advantageous to their case. Surely you don't think they want to deny witnesses that would be advantageous to the defense, do you?




    1. We've been friends since the 80s and he's always said I was one of his favorite clients because I never did anything that made his job harder. The last time I required his services was over 25 years ago and I had to ask for a continuance because he was busy with a murder case in another county that day (mine was a pretty minor misdemeanor). When I was applying for it with the prosecutor and a court clerk they asked for the name of my attorney and their shocked reaction was priceless when I gave it to them. They were expecting one of the ambulance chasers that were handling everyone's else minor cases not a top flight lawyer. All of a sudden they started treating me with respect as a result
    Great, but he's still wrong. I'm sure if he had new evidence that would help your case, he'd surely want it admitted in trial.

  11. #29
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,278
    Amen (Given)
    2801
    Amen (Received)
    1770
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    They take an oath to uphold the constitution as well you know.
    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.

  12. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    322
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Had breakfast with my lawyer about a week ago. His firm is handling a lawsuit for me though he himself is one of the top criminal lawyers in the region[1]. He's no fan of Trump's calling him President Oompa-Loompa but did remark on the Democrat's demands for witnesses to testify now that they weren't all that interested in testifying before the House.

    As he put it, if the Democrats really thought that they had an "overwhelming" case the last thing they would want to do was call more witnesses since they would be wildcards that would far more likely weaken their case than bolster it. If the case was truly "overwhelming" as they claim you would be a fool to tamper with it, but if OTOH you realize that it is full of holes then and only then would you bring in folks who you do not know what they'll say when they testify.

    It all goes back to the old adage about only an imprudent lawyer asks questions of a witness that the lawyer doesn't already know the answers to.





    1. We've been friends since the 80s and he's always said I was one of his favorite clients because I never did anything that made his job harder. The last time I required his services was over 25 years ago and I had to ask for a continuance because he was busy with a murder case in another county that day (mine was a pretty minor misdemeanor). When I was applying for it with the prosecutor and a court clerk they asked for the name of my attorney and their shocked reaction was priceless when I gave it to them. They were expecting one of the ambulance chasers that were handling everyone's else minor cases not a top flight lawyer. All of a sudden they started treating me with respect as a result
    In Australia the prosecution must call all witnesses with unique relevant information to the case whether it helps their case or harms it. Failure to do that is a mistrial. I dont know if its the same over there but even if the Democrats really thought they had an overwhelming case, the jury has indicated that they wont convict so they have nothing to lose.

    On the other hand, if anyone is actually interested in the truth they would want to hear new relevant information. Beyond reasonable doubt can always be shattered by one piece of evidence. From what has been presented so far the case is beyond reasonable doubt. That means that there is no other reasonable explanation that accounts for the evidence. That doesn't mean a reasonable explanation doesn't exist its up to the defence to present it. So far its been a whole lot of whining about unfairness - thats not a reasonable explanation to account for the evidence.

Posting Permissions

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