SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Gary Busey said: insight Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Gary Busey said: For all 4 'witnesses' nah. if one were being objective, they would have to admit Turley was mostly impartial in his opines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: nah. if one were being objective, they would have to admit Turley was mostly impartial in his opines. Mostly? So all 4 'witnesses' They were all "mostly impartial." That's not impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 22 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Turley made my point very clearly. So did Comey when he chose not to indict Hillary because they could not prove intent. They can’t prove intent now — yet they go anyway. Why? They’re terrified and it’s their only play. It won’t work the way they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Nobody has still answered the question: What is the President supposed to do if he suspects the previous Vice President extorted a foreign country for truly personal gain? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I’m glad they called an ‘expert’ on the origins of the President’s sons birth name. We needed that expert incite. I’ve actually been an expert witness. That comment alone would have RUINED me as an expert in anything! How horrible she brought that up as an example! #false outrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: How horrible she brought that up as an example! #false outrage Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Mostly? So all 4 'witnesses' They were all "mostly impartial." That's not impartial. there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump. None of which witnessed anything. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump. Agree to disagree - almost Friday! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me. And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry! Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King. (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump. More to the point, their only appeals were appeals to emotion. I'd actually agree with the few objective statements they made...if their presumption of guilt were proven. The problem being, again, that the only proof of guilt is even more presumption. All of the testimony supporting impeachment is nothing more than people stating their opinions of Trump. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me. Lol, whatever 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry! Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King. (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown. Yes! So obviously they can't tell if Trumpo committed abuse of power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: Lol, whatever Well you’ve finally gotten to the core of prosecution’s case in a single word: “whatever” As Mr Hand said to Spikoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: “May I write that on the board for all my classes to admire?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: More to the point, their only appeals were appeals to emotion. I'd actually agree with the few objective statements they made...if their presumption of guilt were proven. The problem being, again, that the only proof of guilt is even more presumption. All of the testimony supporting impeachment is nothing more than people stating their opinions of Trump. if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, SoCal Deek said: And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry! Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King. (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown. This is the stupidest line of criticism. She was an blockheaded, trying to create a viral moment with a tendentious metaphor using a strained pun that only proved again that the left can't meme. That people are even making an issue out of this is thoroughly moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. Karlan should find a pink slip on her desk when she gets back to California. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. Karlan has to be the easiest A at Stanford. I know the type. All you have to do is parrot back whatever she says, and praise her occasionally. I'll bet in at least on of her classes, the final grade will be based on submitting an "analysis" of her testimony yesterday - which "analysis" will be nothing more than parroting back her statements to prove you watched her. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry! Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King. (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown. I find it hysterical that the Dems actually did what they did yesterday - that is paraded 4 academics out into a public hearing to express their opinions of the President. What I heard was like a panel from a Meet the Press or similar Sunday show. Just lacked commercial breaks. Edited December 5, 2019 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: This is the stupidest line of criticism. She was an blockheaded, trying to create a viral moment with a tendentious metaphor using a strained pun that only proved again that the left can't meme. That people are even making an issue out of this is thoroughly moronic. Tom, she’s not there to meme. This isn’t the Colbert Show. She’s supposed to be a serious legal mind. She proved otherwise. Outrageous and unprofessional. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts