B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Turn out the lights........... or maybe the NYT's could release more nonsense.........? 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: See though, there are a few differences from a court trial. One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that. A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians. Determining of motivations is important here. And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents. There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed? And four, unlike a trial, part of the audience is the public. If they don't apply any pressure to Repub Sens, those Sens can skate out of this. So, not all arguments made by Dems would occur in a courtroom but may be said here in order to influence the public. Consider for a second the dangerous of a precedent "corrupt purposes" would set. You would be institutionalizing thought crime. Who are acting more like Nazis? 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 42 minutes ago, I am the egg man said: Another Lib loses it: https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/ .....it's only the beginning of their insanity. yes! i'm giddy with anticipation!! 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: hahahahahahaaa. where is Nadler? nowhere to be found is the House Judiciary Chair. ? He's off identifying as Jerry Klobachar today 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 37 minutes ago, snafu said: You’re being obtuse. Whether on purpose or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to go into your motives because it is irrelevant. To your second paragraph — the President has the right to do nothing. Just like you do if someone accuses you of something. Silence can not be used to imply guilt. This is as simple a Constitutional right as one can have. To your third paragraph — yes of course I’d want an investigation. And I’d want that investigation to be done by people who have the authority to investigate. And I’d want those people to respect my right to not be required to help them out. By the way, your third paragraph completely disproves your entire premise about motives when looking at the predicate for impeachment. If Trump thought Biden was corrupt, wouldn’t you want him to investigate that? Isn’t that a good motive? This is the problem with weighing motives when there’s more than one reason to do anything. This is why inquiring into motives isn’t really as important as you make them out to be. Part of this is cut from my above post to TYTT. See though, there are a few differences from a court trial. One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that. A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians. Determining of motivations is important here. And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents. There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed? And four, unlike a trial, part of the audience is the public. If they don't apply any pressure to Repub Sens, those Sens can skate out of this. So, not all arguments made by Dems would occur in a courtroom but may be said here in order to influence the public. In addition, Snafu regarding motivations, it is not good versus bad. It is national interests versus personal, political interests. It is not about finding a possible truth, it should about finding out the actual truth. So, going forward, can all US politicians ask for foreign election help?? See, that is part of the problem of just saying whatever he did, it was not enough to convict. OK, but what did he do and what is now improper going forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents. There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed? It's statements like this which result in you being (rightfully) mocked. You admitted you don't know who the IC-IG is or why his testimony is relevant and being kept hidden by Schiff -- yet you claim, without irony, that there's "precious little to counter accounts of his actions". When you INTENTIONALLY remain uninformed and allow yourself to be programmed by proven liars and manipulators, as you have done, then it may seem like there's "precious little to counter" the narrative. But the reality is far different. 11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Call him in the Senate then. Just don't do it just to out the whistle blower. Imo, if not to punish, all that needs to be learned on that issue can be done without putting a target on the guy and his family. I know his name is out there but there is no need to open the guy up to even more crazies that could attack him or his family. Your sympathy for the whistleblower is admirable. Where was it when Nunes was being threatened, doxxed, and attacked by the crazies on the left? Did you pile on? (yup, you did). Did you protest? (nope, because you're a partisan hack, not an independent thinker). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Call him in the Senate then. Just don't do it just to out the whistle blower. Imo, if not to punish, all that needs to be learned on that issue can be done without putting a target on the guy and his family. I know his name is out there but there is no need to open the guy up to even more crazies that could attack him or his family. 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? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, GG said: Consider for a second the dangerous of a precedent "corrupt purposes" would set. You would be institutionalizing thought crime. Who are acting more like Nazis? I'd say it's amazing he fails to see this, but he's the walking embodiment of an NPC, so of course he's blind to it. Yet another reason why @Bob in Mich is rightfully mocked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 I thought today was the day Hillary was going to become President, right? I’m wearing my I’m With Her shirt for the occasion!! trump impeached hillary appointed speaker of the house pence resigns hillary assumes presidency as third in line what happened??? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute 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? Exactly. Bet ya Bob didn't even know that bit. Because Bob isn't interested in truth. He KNOWS the truth, per his own words. He just wants the outcome his overlords have promised him since 2017... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Exactly. Bet ya Bob didn't even know that bit. Because Bob isn't interested in truth. He KNOWS the truth, per his own words. He just wants the outcome his overlords have promised him since 2017... Wait for it, its coming! 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Unless your name is Bob, GarBoTibs, or JA of course. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, GG said: Consider for a second the dangerous of a precedent "corrupt purposes" would set. You would be institutionalizing thought crime. Who are acting more like Nazis? How can a person judging propriety of an action not consider why the action was done in the mind of the defendant? Again, that seems crazy to me. Simple example: Fact: I shoot and kill a man. I am on trial and claim self defense. Would it matter if I broke into his house and killed him as opposed to him breaking into my house and getting shot and killed ? Would you, as a juror, say that is immaterial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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? Either you have serious reading comprehension issues or that is a bold faced lie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 28 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Sure, you are right. But it does show his bad character. Republican Senator Alexander admits Trump abused his power, and both these things are consistant with a person who is corrupt. As are many other things he has done. Hunter Biden is not his father. Trump is just totally corrupt. Joe Biden, no Have you seen Pam Bondi's 30 minutes from earlier in the week? How do you watch that and not conclude that Joe/Hunter needs a close look? If you don't want/like corrupt pols, call balls and strikes on corruption regardless of the batter and the pitcher. Trump only has an interest in the Bidens because of what Joe did. If Joe doesn't land his son a high paying jopb on that board, none of this happens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 So, Warren's question backfired bigly. 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: How can a person judging propriety of an action not consider why the action was done in the mind of the defendant? Again, that seems crazy to me. Because your brain has been broken by Trump. TDS, if left unchecked, is fatal. You should seek help. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, RoyBatty is alive said: Either you have serious reading comprehension issues or that is a bold faced lie Not at all, he admitted to what Trump was accused of. You just want to obfuscate. Ill play, why did Trump withhold aid according to Sen Alexander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Unless your name is Bob, GarBoTibs, or JA of course. i mean, the use of impressive graphics in regard to the most recent bombshell just minutes before todays hearing doesn't show any coordination, right? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Bob in Mich said: How can a person judging propriety of an action not consider why the action was done in the mind of the defendant? Again, that seems crazy to me. Simple example: Fact: I shoot and kill a man. I am on trial and claim self defense. Would it matter if I broke into his house and killed him as opposed to him breaking into my house and getting shot and killed ? Would you, as a juror, say that is immaterial? 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. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 the Donners are pretty ***** stupid. they apparently think playing clips of the WHC defense is a good idea. ? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Reaction to Sen Murkowski's announcement 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Not at all, he admitted to what Trump was accused of. You just want to obfuscate. Ill play, why did Trump withhold aid according to Sen Alexander? You can "play" all by yourself, not interested in parseing words and petty semantics so you can twist and spin to fit your agenda. The best is you claim I obfuscate..so often people try to defend their actions by accussing others of exactly what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, RoyBatty is alive said: You can "play" all by yourself, not interested in parseing words and petty semantics so you can twist and spin to fit your agenda. The best is you claim I obfuscate..so often people try to defend their actions by accussing others of exactly what they are doing. But Alexander did say the House impeachment managers proved their case 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: But Alexander did say the House impeachment managers proved their case disingenuous. what he said was that they proved their case and that it did not rise to a level for impeachment. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 On 1/21/2020 at 11:47 AM, snafu said: Cue Ethel Merman: There's no business like show business and I tell you it's soTraveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nightsSmiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights There's no people like show people, they smile when they are lowAngels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attackWhere could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show Better late than never! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Foxx said: disingenuous. what he said was that they proved their case and that it did not rise to a level for impeachment. And there case was that Trump was extorting a foreign power for dirt in the election. Case proven 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Update: The only remaining Republican around whom there was a shred of doubt on witnesses was Rob Portman. He’s now officially a no too. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Did Alexander vote to convicted in '98? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Did Alexander vote to convicted in '98? whataboutism? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Police shootout at Mar-a-Lago Edited January 31, 2020 by Golden Goat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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. ?♀️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts