Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 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...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 31, 2020 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
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Unless your name is Bob, GarBoTibs, or JA of course. 3
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 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?
RoyBatty is alive 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? Either you have serious reading comprehension issues or that is a bold faced lie 2
keepthefaith Posted January 31, 2020 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
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 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
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 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?
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 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
GG Posted January 31, 2020 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
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 the Donners are pretty ***** stupid. they apparently think playing clips of the WHC defense is a good idea. ? 1 1
RoyBatty is alive Posted January 31, 2020 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.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 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
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 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
snafu Posted January 31, 2020 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
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 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
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 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
Recommended Posts