Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 437

Thread: The Democrats witness dilemma

  1. #421 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,324
    Thanks
    13,666
    Thanked 12,245 Times in 7,658 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,055 Times in 1,002 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Frank, Senators are sworn to be impartial *jurists*.
    The oath says,

    "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"

    "...do impartial justice..."...WHICH IS WHAT I SAID...not "...be impartial jurists"...WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE INCORRECTLY ARGUING.



    Jurists of what? Whatever the House sends them. The House has sent the articles and they insured the whole country that ‘it was all that was needed’ to remove Trump.
    One again..."do impartial justice." They should take into consideration all that is available and all they can obtain...in order to at least pretend they are doing "impartial justice."

    We have only had two other presidential impeachments...AND BOTH HAD WITNESSES. We also had one other hearing of a presidential impeachment...and that had TONS OF WITNESSES.

    You people do not want witnesses because they will fry this incompetent, classless, lawless boor's ass. And people like you would rather be kissing that ass rather than seeing it fried.

    Well, let’s get on with it.
    Sounds good to me.

    And I’ll thank you in advance for not insulting my intelligence with the notion that Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler and a whole bunch of other Democrats are, in any way, ‘impartial’.

    Thanks.
    Darth, you asked a question (a rather loaded one) and I answered the question without all the load. It sounds as thought you do not like the answer I gave. Fine with me...but it is my answer.

    In any case, I doubt any intelligent person is impartial on this matter.

    But...let's put the witnesses up there and present the case as clearly and thoroughly as possible...and then let the spineless Republicans in the Senate acquit the abomination no matter how much evidence of his wrong-doings is presented.

    That should not have a negative impact on our cyber-friendship, Darth.
    ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!

  2. The Following User Groans At Frank Apisa For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Apisa For This Post:

    PoliTalker (01-20-2020)

  4. #422 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The oath says,

    "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"

    "...do impartial justice..."...WHICH IS WHAT I SAID...not "...be impartial jurists"...WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE INCORRECTLY ARGUING.





    One again..."do impartial justice." They should take into consideration all that is available and all they can obtain...in order to at least pretend they are doing "impartial justice."

    We have only had two other presidential impeachments...AND BOTH HAD WITNESSES. We also had one other hearing of a presidential impeachment...and that had TONS OF WITNESSES.

    You people do not want witnesses because they will fry this incompetent, classless, lawless boor's ass. And people like you would rather be kissing that ass rather than seeing it fried.



    Sounds good to me.

    Darth, you asked a question (a rather loaded one) and I answered the question without all the load. It sounds as thought you do not like the answer I gave. Fine with me...but it is my answer.

    In any case, I doubt any intelligent person is impartial on this matter.

    But...let's put the witnesses up there and present the case as clearly and thoroughly as possible...and then let the spineless Republicans in the Senate acquit the abomination no matter how much evidence of his wrong-doings is presented.

    That should not have a negative impact on our cyber-friendship, Darth.
    I won’t belabor the jurist/justice distinction except for the fact it is a *trial*, Frank.

    Who are the jurists?

    And I’m not the one standing in the way of witnesses—it’s the Democrats. They balked on Hunter Biden and I just opened a thread on it.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  6. #423 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,324
    Thanks
    13,666
    Thanked 12,245 Times in 7,658 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,055 Times in 1,002 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    I won’t belabor the jurist/justice distinction except for the fact it is a *trial*, Frank.
    The words are here, Darth.

    Who are the jurists?
    Beats the shit out of me.

    According to the late Chief Justice Renquist it is NOT the senators...or at least, that is not entirely their job.

    The chief justice sustained the objection of Sen. Tom Harkin to the use of the word "jurors" when referring to the senators at the trial of Bill Clinton.

    “The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”

    Rehnquist thus admonished the House managers “to refrain from referring to the senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...wla-story.html


    And I’m not the one standing in the way of witnesses—it’s the Democrats. They balked on Hunter Biden and I just opened a thread on it.
    I imagine they would balk at calling you or me as a witness also, Darth. Hunter Biden has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether or not Trump extorted President Zelensky.
    ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!

  7. The Following User Groans At Frank Apisa For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank Apisa For This Post:

    Iolo/Penderyn (01-20-2020), PoliTalker (01-20-2020)

  9. #424 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,447
    Thanks
    23,965
    Thanked 19,108 Times in 13,083 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Jarod,

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    I say call em all! Even the irrelevant ones.
    America deserves to hear everything that anyone knowledgeable has to say about the case.

    And that includes the central figure.

    Individual one.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (01-20-2020)

  11. #425 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Jarod,



    America deserves to hear everything that anyone knowledgeable has to say about the case.

    And that includes the central figure.

    Individual one.
    45* has already confessed to the crime. His position is that extracting a Trumped up investigation of his rivals from Ukraine is AOK and "perfect." All he can do is implicate others.
    I'm not sure about the legal relevancy of a perp saying murder is not murder because I'm king. Although I would enjoy watching his lawyers
    watch him testify.

  12. The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  13. #426 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,498
    Thanks
    78,174
    Thanked 23,673 Times in 17,931 Posts
    Groans
    38,857
    Groaned 3,248 Times in 3,052 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Jarod,



    America deserves to hear everything that anyone knowledgeable has to say about the case.

    And that includes the central figure.

    Individual one.
    Fortunately, you don't get to determine the rules of the Senate, Snowflake.

    The Republican Senate with a simple majority vote get to do that.

    Would you care to render a prediction as to the final outcome?

    You can use your sock, old Walter, to respond.

  14. #427 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,498
    Thanks
    78,174
    Thanked 23,673 Times in 17,931 Posts
    Groans
    38,857
    Groaned 3,248 Times in 3,052 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Darth, have you noticed that this forum is slow this morning?

    Perhaps it's just the slow libruls (sic).

  15. #428 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,447
    Thanks
    23,965
    Thanked 19,108 Times in 13,083 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Frank, Senators are sworn to be impartial *jurists*.

    Jurists of what? Whatever the House sends them. The House has sent the articles and they insured the whole country that ‘it was all that was needed’ to remove Trump.

    Well, let’s get on with it.

    And I’ll thank you in advance for not insulting my intelligence with the notion that Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler and a whole bunch of other Democrats are, in any way, ‘impartial’.

    Thanks.
    Those people are partial when it comes to policy, but this is justice, and they have done a remarkable job of servicing the Constitution. It was an amazing impeachment. They covered all the bases from establishing well beyond a reasonable doubt why, to why impeachment is needed in the Constitution. It was very informative and absolutely convincing to anyone who went into it with an open mind.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. The Following 2 Users Groan At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020), USFREEDOM911 (01-20-2020)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-20-2020)

  18. #429 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,447
    Thanks
    23,965
    Thanked 19,108 Times in 13,083 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Frank,

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The oath says,

    "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"

    "...do impartial justice..."...WHICH IS WHAT I SAID...not "...be impartial jurists"...WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE INCORRECTLY ARGUING.





    One again..."do impartial justice." They should take into consideration all that is available and all they can obtain...in order to at least pretend they are doing "impartial justice."

    We have only had two other presidential impeachments...AND BOTH HAD WITNESSES. We also had one other hearing of a presidential impeachment...and that had TONS OF WITNESSES.

    You people do not want witnesses because they will fry this incompetent, classless, lawless boor's ass. And people like you would rather be kissing that ass rather than seeing it fried.



    Sounds good to me.

    Darth, you asked a question (a rather loaded one) and I answered the question without all the load. It sounds as thought you do not like the answer I gave. Fine with me...but it is my answer.

    In any case, I doubt any intelligent person is impartial on this matter.

    But...let's put the witnesses up there and present the case as clearly and thoroughly as possible...and then let the spineless Republicans in the Senate acquit the abomination no matter how much evidence of his wrong-doings is presented.

    That should not have a negative impact on our cyber-friendship, Darth.
    Yeah, they didn't swear to only look at just the information the House sent over. Has that *ever* been the way it was done previously, or is that spelled out so specifically in the Constitution? No.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  19. The Following 2 Users Groan At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020), USFREEDOM911 (01-20-2020)

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-20-2020)

  21. #430 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,498
    Thanks
    78,174
    Thanked 23,673 Times in 17,931 Posts
    Groans
    38,857
    Groaned 3,248 Times in 3,052 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Darth,



    Those people are partial when it comes to policy, but this is justice, and they have done a remarkable job of servicing the Constitution. It was an amazing impeachment. They covered all the bases from establishing well beyond a reasonable doubt why, to why impeachment is needed in the Constitution. It was very informative and absolutely convincing to anyone who went into it with an open mind.
    If they covered all the bases, why do they now need additional witnesses?

    The only thing that matters will be the "amazing" exoneration" in the Senate,

  22. #431 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,498
    Thanks
    78,174
    Thanked 23,673 Times in 17,931 Posts
    Groans
    38,857
    Groaned 3,248 Times in 3,052 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    It appears that Walter has disappeared and PoliTalker has taken his place. Magic!

  23. #432 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Darth,



    Those people are partial when it comes to policy, but this is justice, and they have done a remarkable job of servicing the Constitution. It was an amazing impeachment. They covered all the bases from establishing well beyond a reasonable doubt why, to why impeachment is needed in the Constitution. It was very informative and absolutely convincing to anyone who went into it with an open mind.
    The House passed such a great impeachment they only need a few more witnesses to get it over the hump lol?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  25. #433 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,447
    Thanks
    23,965
    Thanked 19,108 Times in 13,083 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The House passed such a great impeachment they only need a few more witnesses to get it over the hump lol?
    Trump fans are not impartial. They are heavily prejudiced. They refuse to even consider the possibility that Trump is guilty.

    They accept lies. How could they be moved by the truth?

    They have been conditioned to accept lies which were repeated over and over. They only way to get they to accept the truth is to have it repeated over and over. If all the witnesses heard in the House didn't do it, then we must hear from even more numerous and convincing witnesses in the Senate.

    Trials have witnesses. A trail which refuses to hear knowledgeable first hand witnesses is a farce.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  26. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (01-20-2020)

  27. #434 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    78,289
    Thanks
    31,088
    Thanked 13,129 Times in 11,701 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,352 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    What did the investigation have to do with the U. S. government? And what investigation revealed any corruption?
    Repetitious question already answered. RQAA.

  28. #435 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    78,289
    Thanks
    31,088
    Thanked 13,129 Times in 11,701 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,352 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    45* has already confessed to the crime. His position is that extracting a Trumped up investigation of his rivals from Ukraine is AOK and "perfect." All he can do is implicate others.
    I'm not sure about the legal relevancy of a perp saying murder is not murder because I'm king. Although I would enjoy watching his lawyers
    watch him testify.
    What crime?

Similar Threads

  1. Trump’s job approval shows the Democrats’ dilemma in 2018
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 01-15-2018, 06:39 PM
  2. When is a dilemma not a dilemma,
    By archives in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-15-2018, 04:37 PM
  3. Witness bombshell - Muller tried to use intimidation to help DEMOCRATS
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2017, 12:37 PM
  4. I have a dilemma
    By Sun Devil in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 06:21 PM
  5. My Dilemma
    By klaatu in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 12:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •