Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Impeachment Trial
Collapse
X
-
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)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Sorry, here's the correct link what I quoted:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hy-it-matters/
And the legal briefing in question:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4437...ity-01-19-2020Some 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
Comment
-
Curiously, Democrat Chris Murphy says it's possible that some Democrats could vote against one or both of the articles.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-acquit-trump/
Although I wonder if this is a case of "possible but not likely".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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe relevant questions are:
1) Who was Trump giving the order to, if no State Department officials were present?
2) Why would Trump expect this order to be carried out without his directing those State Department officials to do so (i.e., why relay orders to an "irregular channel"?)
3) Why did Trump lie about not knowing Lev Parnas and how does that lie reflect on his assertion of "no quid pro quo"?
--Sam
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe relevant questions are:The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
"Today we heard a presentation that was strong and that was clear and it completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff," [Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)] said following the hearing. "The most effective thing that happened was when they first read – this was when the president's counsel first read the transcript of the phone call with the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized, made-up script."
"From where I was sitting, and I know the press couldn't see his face, but the blood drained from Adam Schiff's face as they played that video and his made-up words," Barrasso said.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...cript-n2560117
I wish someone had caught that on camera!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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWe are so very blessed to have somebody to tell us so clearly which "the relevant questions" are.
Unless you're just here to gripe, in which case it's probably a bit aggravating.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostA chore but one that's unfortunately necessary.
Unless you're just here to gripe, in which case it's probably a bit aggravating.
--SamThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIs it okay if I reject your hidden premise that if none of these questions can be answered your satisfaction that it proves Trump is guilty?
Again:
1) Who was Trump giving the order to, if no State Department officials were present?
2) Why would Trump expect this order to be carried out without his directing those State Department officials to do so (i.e., why relay orders to an "irregular channel"?)
3) Why did Trump lie about not knowing Lev Parnas and how does that lie reflect on his assertion of "no quid pro quo"?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostNevertheless they need to be answered.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
Comment
-
Ken Starr: "And so the appropriate question. Were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of Presidential Impeachment? In Nixon, yes. In Clinton, yes. Here, no. A factor to be considered as the judges and the high court come as you will individually to your judgment."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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostKen Starr: "And so the appropriate question. Were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of Presidential Impeachment? In Nixon, yes. In Clinton, yes. Here, no. A factor to be considered as the judges and the high court come as you will individually to your judgment."
Then... Prurua? Whatever his name.... he did a super job with the time line.
What was really interesting was the constant " the House Managers told you x... but they never told you y...."The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWhat was really interesting was the constant " the House Managers told you x... but they never told you y...."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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYep... when they said, "You should hear all the evidence," they meant it!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Apparently the defense just shredded Hunter Biden and made a strong case that Trump had good reason to ask Ukraine to take a look at his dirty deals. As one commentator put it:
"Are Democrats really going to want to call witnesses, including Hunter Biden, after that presentation from Bondi? Yikes."
https://townhall.com/liveblog/2020/0...nald-trump-n89
And this brings up a good point. The Democrats might get Bolton, but reciprocity rules allow the defense to call whoever they want in return. Do Democrats really want to poke that bear?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
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
103 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
294 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
362 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:37 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
363 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment