Jump to content
Nanker

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Donners are pretty ***** stupid. they apparently think playing clips of the WHC defense is a good idea. 😏

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction to Sen Murkowski's announcement

 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling 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 low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

 

Better late than never!

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Did Alexander vote to convicted in '98? 

whataboutism?

 

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...