Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: He doesn't need to be called, they have his testimony already but we aren't allowed to see it because Schiff. So they can redact the name of the whistleblower from the transcript. Remember the President and his counsel were barred from calling their own witnesses in the House. Was that maybe a bit unfair and dangerous or nah? Of the 18 witnesses called by the dems and the dems only, just Atkinson's testimony has been sealed. By Adam Schiff. I wonder why? The House phase was not the trial phase. It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach. Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process. I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated. It wasn't the trial. The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume. They have majority and votes to call the shots. Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him. Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony? I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson 1
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And there case was that Trump was extorting a foreign power for dirt in the election. Case proven no, sorry. i think maybe you should ask @Bob in Mich about what the definition of extortion entails. 1
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Did Alexander vote to convicted in '98?
Bray Wyatt Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: The House phase was not the trial phase. It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach. Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process. I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated. It wasn't the trial. The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume. They have majority and votes to call the shots. Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him. Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony? I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson House collects the evidence and submits it to Senate for trial....... Senates job is not gather evidence or call new witnesses 1 2
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Did Alexander vote to convicted in '98? whataboutism? ?
BillsFanNC Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: The House phase was not the trial phase. It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach. Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process. I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated. It wasn't the trial. The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume. They have majority and votes to call the shots. Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him. Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony? I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson So they shouldn't hear ALL the evidence, as contrived as it was, why exactly? If you were accused of a crime would you be fine if your defense lawyers were barred from all pre-trial proceedings and the only evidence allowed at trial is that produced by the prosecution? Dangerous to your ability to defend your innocence or nah? 2
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: The House phase was not the trial phase. It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach. Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process. I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated. It wasn't the trial. The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume. They have majority and votes to call the shots. Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him. Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony? I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson Because you don't know the facts, you're only embarrassing yourself now. Schiff is keeping the testimony classified in his committee. The public can't see it, it isn't in the impeachment record -- which means it can't be brought up by either side. Why would Schiff do that? Why aren't you outraged by that? Because you're a partisan hack who is very, very uninformed. 3 1
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Foxx said: whataboutism? ? Worse than that Lamar Alexander wasn't in Congress in 1998. Don't tell Tibsy 1 3
Golden Goat Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Police shootout at Mar-a-Lago Edited January 31, 2020 by Golden Goat 2
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: Worse than that Lamar Alexander wasn't in Congress in 1998. Don't tell Tibsy tff. ?♀️
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 It’s looking increasingly like the curtain might soon be coming down on the Democrats’ impeachment circus, but Nancy Pelosi is handling it well. Wait, no she isn’t — but she has come up with a name intended to glorify the House impeachment managers: That’s what we thought she said. Pelosi obviously thinks “magnificent custodians of the Constitution” sounds better than “neverending impeachment circus ringleaders” . Expect to see a lot of this the next few days 3 2 1
ALF Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 I would be ok with the Senate not calling witnesses and then acquittal of Trump if they don't censor Bolton's book and let him talk freely to the media.
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 20 minutes ago, GG said: You're doing a great disservice to the argument that marijuana helps with cognitive thinking. Your position flips criminal law on its head. In your example, intent ONLY comes into play to ascertain the aspect of a crime that has been committed. You don't look at the intent before the crime occurred, otherwise you would be locking up people simple for having bad thoughts. Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it.
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Senator Alexander admits Trump is guilty of trying to rig the election, so he calls on the election as a remedy? What happens if and when he cheats yet again? Gleeful Gator, once again quoting something that must be out of context since he doesn't supply a link and/or it's merely one sentence. 1
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, ALF said: I would be ok with the Senate not calling witnesses and then acquittal of Trump if they don't censor Bolton's book and let him talk freely to the media. he will be called before the House PermaImpeachment next week.
SoCal Deek Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it. Oh please! I’m involved with public policy on the local level. Elected officials routinely are involved in things that later the Public Counsel tells the administrators that ‘they can’t do that’ because of some statute somewhere. Those officials are NOT kicked out of office! 1
GG Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it. You still haven't provided any argument that shows the illegality of his actions or valid reasons for impeachment, other than "Trump Bad" You even admit that he stopped whatever plan he had. What was he caught doing? Explain his actions in legal terms, not in emotional babble. Edited January 31, 2020 by GG 2 1
Gary M Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Those officials are NOT kicked out of office! Because they aren't #orangemanbad
Recommended Posts