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.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Hillary was pronounced guilty then let off the hook by Comey.

    They actually had the evidence on her.

    And Biden was bragging how he personally extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. On video. And the fact that the person he got fired had ties to his Son's "job" is enough to raise eyebrows and be investigated.
    You’re not going to be able to enjoy this trial if you get sidetracked by stories about Clinton, Comey and Biden. They are irrelevant to the issues at hand.

    If you think that Trump was motivated by something other than what is obvious, you need to get him and his people in the witness box and ask them what they were up to and what they believed and why. Let’s see if they can justify their own actions based on what they knew at the time and the records they kept of their deliberations.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Hillary was pronounced guilty then let off the hook by Comey.

      They actually had the evidence on her.

      And Biden was bragging how he personally extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. On video. And the fact that the person he got fired had ties to his Son's "job" is enough to raise eyebrows and be investigated.
      So the next step is to get an explanation from Biden then see if it checks out. If it checks out then it doesnt matter if it also happens to benefit them personally.

      If Trump had a legitimate reason to condition the aid on the investigations then it wouldn’t matter if he benefits politically as a result.

      It’s a problem if the personal benefit is the only reason for doing it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        So you’ve seen the book and know that is in there?
        Ive used it many times.

        Playing words with friends.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
          Ive used it many times.

          Playing words with friends.
          Dyslexia, my friend.

          Now do you know what the book actually says?
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
            The aid was already frozen. Bolton said ‘release the aid!!!!’ and trump said ‘not until they announce those investigations!!!’.
            That may have been a high level conversation Trump had with Bolton (and this assumes the New York Times story is even true, which is far from a safe bet), but by all accounts, that directive was never passed on to anybody else. There were apparently rumors flying around, but when Sondland asked Trump directly, he was told "no quid pro quo" in terms he described at the time as "crystal clear".
            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


            • In today's Senate Q&A, Chuck Schumer asked Shifty if the Senate could render a verdict based only on the case presented by the House managers. Shifty said "the short answer is no" and then made another plea for additional witnesses and evidence.

              But... didn't he already tell us that the evidence they had was overwhelming and indisputable? Now he's suggesting that they didn't even present a complete case!
              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 Post
                In today's Senate Q&A, Chuck Schumer asked Shifty if the Senate could render a verdict based only on the case presented by the House managers. Shifty said "the short answer is no" and then made another plea for additional witnesses and evidence.

                But... didn't he already tell us that the evidence they had was overwhelming and indisputable? Now he's suggesting that they didn't even present a complete case!
                That's a continuing problem with Schiff --- "we presented a ROCK SOLID case" vs "oooops, we need the Senate to bail our sorry butts out of this fiasco we've created".

                I'm really tired of it, and it MAY end Friday (I doubt it) or it could drag on for MONTHS, but I don't know a single person who believes there's actually any chance of removal.

                So, at this point, it's all just political theater.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  In today's Senate Q&A, Chuck Schumer asked Shifty if the Senate could render a verdict based only on the case presented by the House managers. Shifty said "the short answer is no" and then made another plea for additional witnesses and evidence.

                  But... didn't he already tell us that the evidence they had was overwhelming and indisputable? Now he's suggesting that they didn't even present a complete case!
                  He means that the Republican senators need more convincing, because they are ‘slow on the up’.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    He means that the Republican senators need more convincing, because they are ‘slow on the up’.
                    Laughing. I think Schiffty Schiff is "fast on the down".
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      Dyslexia, my friend.

                      Now do you know what the book actually says?
                      I tried to look it up and it’s not in the Oxford dictionary. It’s not a word! At least not a word in English. That’s bizarre.

                      Apologies to Mountain Man.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        In today's Senate Q&A, Chuck Schumer asked Shifty if the Senate could render a verdict based only on the case presented by the House managers. Shifty said "the short answer is no" and then made another plea for additional witnesses and evidence.

                        But... didn't he already tell us that the evidence they had was overwhelming and indisputable? Now he's suggesting that they didn't even present a complete case!
                        He's pretty much admitting that their "overwhelming case" is lacking

                        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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                          I tried to look it up and it’s not in the Oxford dictionary. It’s not a word! At least not a word in English. That’s bizarre.

                          Apologies to Mountain Man.
                          Fielty

                          The state of owing one's service (particularly of a soldier, warrior, knight, rider) to a king, queen, or other ruler.


                          But I was guessing he meant to type 'fidelity'.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            He's pretty much admitting that their "overwhelming case" is lacking
                            Because they have failed to move the needle very much at all with respect to OVERWHELMING support from the American people.

                            By the way --- I am SO TIRED of BOTH SIDES so confidently declaring "but the American People want... blah blah blah....."
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              In today's Senate Q&A, Chuck Schumer asked Shifty if the Senate could render a verdict based only on the case presented by the House managers. Shifty said "the short answer is no" and then made another plea for additional witnesses and evidence.

                              But... didn't he already tell us that the evidence they had was overwhelming and indisputable? Now he's suggesting that they didn't even present a complete case!
                              The question was "Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other key eyewitness or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence".

                              There's an obvious difference between what Schumer asked, what Schiff responded to, and what you characterized. Schiff has repeatedly said -- and said in his response! -- that the House has presented sufficient evidence for conviction. Schiff argued that, despite this, if senators have questions about the President's motives -- as many Republican senators claim to do -- then they can get direct testimony from Bolton.

                              Don't mischaracterize questions and answers.

                              Source: House Manager Adam Schiff. Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 9

                              THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE. THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NUMBER THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITNESSES AND WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO IS AS PLAINLY RELEVANT AS JOHN BOLTON WHO GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT , WHO HAS VOLUNTEERED TO COME AND TESTIFY , TO TURN HIM AWAY, TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY I THINK IS DEEPLY AT ODDS BEING AN IMPARTIAL JUROR. I WOULD ALSO ADD IN RESPONSE TO THE LAST QUESTION THAT IN ANY PART OF THE PRESIDENTS MOTIVATION WAS A CORRUPT MOTIVE, IT WAS A CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE ACTION TO FREEZE THE AID OR WITHHOLD THE MEETING , THAT IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT HIM. IT IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT UNDER CRIMINAL LAW BUT HERE THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS MOTIVATION AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS MOTIVATION, IT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE ESSENTIAL TO CALL A MAN WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT, THAT THE PRESIDENT CONFIDED IN AND SAID HE WAS HOLDING UP THIS AID BECAUSE HE WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION . IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A FACTOR , THE FACTOR, A QUARTER OF THE FACTOR, ALL OF THE FACTOR, THERE IS A IS A WITNESS A SUBPOENA AWAY WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION . BUT THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE MAKES IT CLEAR ON JULY 26 , THE DAY AFTER THAT PHONE CALL , DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS TO GORDON SONDLAND AND WHAT DOES GORDON SONDLAND, WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENTS QUESTION OF GORDON SONDLAND THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL, IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION ? THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. HE MAY HAVE HAD A GENERIC CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING BUT HERE THE MOTIVATION WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. ON THE PHONE THE ONLY QUESTION HE WANTED AN ANSWER TO WAS IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION ? THERE IN MY IS TALKING TO THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. WHAT BETTER PERSON TO TALK TO IF HIS REAL CONCERN WAS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AND THE GUY RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE'S BURDEN SHARING ? WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE THIS AT ALL? OF COURSE NOT. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT , AT ALL , YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM HIS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR . DON'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK . DON'T WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE . TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION , WAS IT ALL THE MOTIVE, SOME OF THE MOTIVE OR NONE OF THE MOTIVE AND WE THINK AS I MENTIONED THE CASE IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR WITHOUT JOHN BOLTON BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT , YOU CAN ERASE ALL DOUBT. NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU A VIDEO TOo NUMBER TWO, SLIDE TWO. HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. THIS HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY , THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS . BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING VERY , VERY CONSEQUENTIAL AND ASK YOURSELF , ASK YOURSELF GIVEN THE FACTS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU , WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS ? WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS ? IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A SHELL GAME. THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS .

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              "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


                              • Interesting...

                                2:21 PM: Grassley asks if the House’s refusal to enforce subpoenas make the “obstruction of Congress” theory unprecedented.

                                Philbin says yes. He is unaware of any case where the House issued subpoenas, got resistance, and then threw up its hands, and then claimed obstruction. Philbin says the Constitution requires incrementalism in disputes between the branches and the House never sought accommodation [or] took the next steps.

                                https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ask-questions/

                                As I've said before, without a judicial ruling against the Trump administration for refusing the "subpoenas" then there's nothing to say they did anything wrong.
                                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 little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X