The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[snafu]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Would be nice to ask Bolton if he was aware of other similar schemes. 

 

This is exactly why there should have been no Senate testimony.

 

[Bob in Mich]

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

This is exactly why there should have been no Senate testimony.

 

I don't understand.  Why not find that out?   Do you think you would have been in favor of getting the Nixon tapes at the time or not ?

Edited February 4, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I don't understand.  Why not find that out?

 

Any other schemes, as you put it, should have been discovered in the House, so they could write articles of impeachment for those other schemes.  That’s their job.  That’s not the Senate’s job.  The Senate’s job is to have a trial on the articles that the House passes, not to uncover more schemes.

 

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Never has his cowardice been on display more than this post. I think he donated his nuts to science long ago. 

 

Waste.

Of. 

Carbon.

As an aside, when those scientists were delivered those nuts they thought they were jellyfish and tossed them.

[Q-baby!]

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is something you can verify for yourself. Horwitz's report is clear this happened. He's a democrat, and not a part of the administration... 

 

 

And yet you still cite disproven conspiracy theories as if they were fact.

 

You're such a joke  

??? Nutbar! 

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Any other schemes, as you put it, should have been discovered in the House, so they could write articles of impeachment for those other schemes.  That’s their job.  That’s not the Senate’s job.  The Senate’s job is to have a trial on the articles that the House passes, not to uncover more schemes.

 

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

 

Unfortunately impeachment proceedings have their own rules and are run by political parties.   Apples and oranges comparison to a criminal trial.  This is an example of why Congress has an approval rating less than half of that of the President. 

 

 

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

 

 

Nope, not beating this horse again with you. Find some other sucker. Your questions have already been answered by me and several others in this thread. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Welp, you've certainly closed your mind to Joe Biden, on camera, admitting to his corruption in The Ukraine.    And lots of people not associated with the Democrats certainly want to know more about that. 

 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Nope, not beating this horse again with you. Find some other sucker. Your questions have already been answered by me and several others in this thread. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.

 

 

Didn't recall that that was you earlier.  Don't answer then.  Did I start this conversation or did you?

 

The hypothetical helps focus on the heart of the matter.   It flips motivation around and then asks the 'same' question.   I don't think you would ever accept that weak excuse you used if you were motivated to learn the truth, as in the rape example. 

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Didn't recall that that was you earlier.  Don't answer then.  Did I start this conversation or did you?

 

The hypothetical helps focus on the heart of the matter.   It flips motivation around and then asks the 'same' question.   I don't think you would ever accept that weak excuse you used if you were motivated to learn the truth, as in the rape example. 

 

I don’t need a hypothetical. I understand the actual events. Your use of hypotheticals is a waste of time. Maybe you should focus on learning the actual events and then you don’t need to waste your time with hypotheticals. And maybe get an open mind.  You like to spout one sided talking points. That’s a waste of time, too.

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Welp, you've certainly closed your mind to Joe Biden, on camera, admitting to his corruption in The Ukraine.    And lots of people not associated with the Democrats certainly want to know more about that. 

 

How do you know that I closed my mind?  Are you referencing some earlier discussion?

 

My take on the Biden issue you reference has been explained as a quid pro quo HOWEVER it was done as part of our policy and not related to smearing personal political opponents.  There is disagreement whether or not he ended up protecting his son's job or not as the particular prosecutor has been said to both be investigating and to not be investigating.  I don't know the truth.

 

The whole problem is that I see Hunter's bad judgement and that his job looked bad but I have not seen any concrete evidence of further misdeeds.  What exactly are you suspicious he did?  Do you have hard evidence of that?

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

How do you know that I closed my mind?  Are you referencing some earlier discussion?

 

My take on the Biden issue you reference has been explained as a quid pro quo HOWEVER it was done as part of our policy and not related to smearing personal political opponents.  There is disagreement whether or not he ended up protecting his son's job or not as the particular prosecutor has been said to both be investigating and to not be investigating.  I don't know the truth.

 

The whole problem is that I see Hunter's bad judgement and that his job looked bad but I have not seen any concrete evidence of further misdeeds.  What exactly are you suspicious he did?  Do you have hard evidence of that?

yeah, go check out the Ukraine thread. You are welcome. 

[Bob in Mich]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don’t need a hypothetical. I understand the actual events. Your use of hypotheticals is a waste of time. Maybe you should focus on learning the actual events and then you don’t need to waste your time with hypotheticals. And maybe get an open mind.  You like to spout one sided talking points. That’s a waste of time, too.

 

Thanks for your advice.  Gee I guess I must be the only one with a political take.  On this topic my position aligns with the Dem position.  Why should I argue positions with which I disagree.  That would be silly. 

 

Not a waste of my time though as obviously it forced you to see, if not admit, that it is a weak, totally partisan position motivated by a desire to bury truth. 

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for your advice.  Gee I guess I must be the only one with a political take.  On this topic my position aligns with the Dem position.  Why should I argue positions with which I disagree.  That would be silly. 

 

Not a waste of my time though as obviously it forced you to see, if not admit, that it is a weak, totally partisan position motivated by a desire to bury truth. 

 

Bull *****, Bob.

 

[Bob in Mich]

Alrighty then    Good night folks.   Out.

[Deranged Rhino]

Replay of Bob's day of posting in this thread: 

[Hedge]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Replay of Bob's day of posting in this thread: 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Bob, thinking he's getting lucky tonight. 

[Foxx]

10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Probably impossible but I would like to come to general agreement as to what types of misdeeds would fall under that label of high crimes and misdemeanors and what specifically would not.  As it stands today, the question is never discussed until one party is under fire and then the political interpretations override honest interpretations.  It may require periodic review or updating but that definition seems to be a big part of disagreements in the last 50 years or so.

i have already explained my position here. taken in it's context, 'bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors' seems to indicate that an actual crime is needed. as we know with what just happened, no actual crime was alleged in either article.

 

 

9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

the continued argument of comparing apples to oranges does not hold water of any sorts. in a criminal trial you are afforded the protections of double jeopardy. in a political trial, you have no such protections. nothing is stopping the House from holding (as they should but one never knows with Nancy Schiffty) a vote to re-initiate an inquiry to bring more articles should an investigation warrant it.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Foxx