How Can McConnell and Graham Take Oaths Of Impartiality?

Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
Thinnest? based on what? Trump is getting deeper and deeper every day. But the House had lots more and settled on 2.The House impeaches after gathering evidence. The Senate runs a trial. Do you understand what is involved in a trial? Witnesses, evidence, lawyers and judges. The house was essentially acting as an evidence-gathering organization, similar to the police crime scene investigation and forensics. That is turned over to the Senate for a trial.
Click to expand...

Republicans want to get a big rubber stamp that says 'innocent,' stamp the papers and claim they held a trial.

They consider Trump above the law. They wanna hand him a scepter and cover his combover with a crown.
 
PoliTalker said:
Both have already made public statements of being partial.

What a crock if they are allowed to swear impartiality with no objections.

Justice Roberts, we are counting on you.

Reject both of them!
Click to expand...

Every democrat in the Senate running for President and auditioning for VP should recuse themselves as they are not impartial
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Nordberg,



Republicans want to get a big rubber stamp that says 'innocent,' stamp the papers and claim they held a trial.

They consider Trump above the law. They wanna hand him a scepter and cover his combover with a crown.
Click to expand...


should have built a better case
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Thinnest, based on historical precedent.

The evidence in the Clinton/Nixon impeachments were voluminous by comparison. In fact, both Nixon and Clinton were deemed guilty prior to the House passing the articles.
Click to expand...

So was Trump, depending on who you ask.

Darth Omar said:
In terms of impeachment, there has never been a more ‘rush to judgment’ then this.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part of the Constitution that says all impeachments will be the same.

What Trump did was worse than Nixon or Clinton. Clinton lied about a BJ. Nixon tried to rig an election domestically. Trump tried to rig an election by inviting foreign intervention. That Trumps the other two! And after all, he's Trump.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



That doesn't follow. And some Democrats voted each way. That shows they were not voting any strict party line. But all the Republicans voted the same cookie cutter way. Very partisan.



Everyone should, Republicans included. What happened to the Republicans who refused to comment? Saying "I cannot comment. I am a potential juror?" What happened to that? How can a juror come out before a trial has even started and state they have already made up their mind and then go swear to be impartial? They can't. Not without lying.



If Republicans turn this into a sham without witnesses, the 70% of Americans who want to hear from all the witnesses are not going to be satisfied with it. This needs to be a real trial.

Trump needs to testify, just like Bill Clinton did.

We need to hear from our leader, front and center. It's lonely at the top time.
Click to expand...

The Senate *assumes* the House did the necessary investigative work prior to sending the articles so they are under no obligation to continue the investigation in the Senate by calling witnesses neither side has had an opportunity to interview prior to the trial.

None, whatsoever.

This message needs to be sent to future Houses: don’t send half-finished investigations over and expect us to finish *your work* and then vote on it. House Democrats had a shot at Bolton but they wanted their half-cocked impeachment* before Christmas.

No witnesses. Sorry/not sorry.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
The Senate *assumes* the House did the necessary investigative work prior to sending the articles so they are under no obligation to continue the investigation in the Senate by calling witnesses neither side has had an opportunity to interview prior to the trial.

None, whatsoever.

This message needs to be sent to future Houses: don’t send half-finished investigations over and expect us to finish *your work* and then vote on it. House Democrats had a shot at Bolton but they wanted their half-cocked impeachment* before Christmas.

No witnesses. Sorry/not sorry.
Click to expand...

Well correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander both want to hear from witnesses. Sounds like the dam is breaking. Just toss in Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and all of a sudden we might just hear from witnesses after all. This thing could get very out of control of Trump real fast, tweets or no tweets.

It only takes 4 Republicans to jump ship...

And we have more evidence coming out regularly. If the Senate doesn't seize the opportunity to deal with it the House can always crank up another impeachment.

The SCOTUS is set to rule on releasing Trump's taxes and financial records in March. That could lead to another impeachment, if Trump survives this one.
 
archives said:
Well "pp" show us, show us where a Senate Democrat said they knew exactly now how they will cast their vote in the Senate before the evidence is delivered. Show us where any Senate Democrat said that they would be working with the impeachment managers to get the verdict they wanted

If you can't, you are showing us that you are full of shit, your turn
Click to expand...

start with the six running for president who've already said they want him impeached......then add the all other demmycunts who've thought it but may not have said it........stupid fuck, get that penis out of your ear.....
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I love how you believe that you know how a large group of millions of people think.
Click to expand...

I base it on input from the examples here. I'm also talking about the folks here. But hey, you can imagine all sorts of stuff and try to put that on me, it seems to be par for the course with Democrats.

We can also determine a bit how "they" think by the way they start spouting talking points... like, "They shouldn't be allowed to say they'll be impartial!"
 
Teflon Don said:
Every democrat in the Senate running for President and auditioning for VP should recuse themselves as they are not impartial
Click to expand...

Not about the idiot in chief, but that does not mean they cannot hear the evidence and make a fair and honest decision. The difference is Moscow and Lindsey said they will not. They have no intention of being fair jurors. That is a terrible thing to say.
 
Gonzomin said:
Not about the idiot in chief, but that does not mean they cannot hear the evidence and make a fair and honest decision. The difference is Moscow and Lindsey said they will not. They have no intention of being fair jurors. That is a terrible thing to say.
Click to expand...

They all have major conflicts of interest and would be guilty of that which Trump is being accused; abuse of power interfering in an election trying to damage ones opponent

There isn’t a criminal court in the country that would allow them to be jurors. They must recuse themselves
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



Well correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander both want to hear from witnesses. Sounds like the dam is breaking. Just toss in Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and all of a sudden we might just hear from witnesses after all. This thing could get very out of control of Trump real fast, tweets or no tweets.

It only takes 4 Republicans to jump ship...

And we have more evidence coming out regularly. If the Senate doesn't seize the opportunity to deal with it the House can always crank up another impeachment.

The SCOTUS is set to rule on releasing Trump's taxes and financial records in March. That could lead to another impeachment, if Trump survives this one.
Click to expand...

Well, if the Senate votes to hear witnesses then future Houses can send partially investigated charges over to the Senate—with a straight line partisan vote by the majority party. Then they can sit on the articles while the investigation is completed, or not.

Or they can not send them at all, and proclaim that the president is ‘impeached for life’. Then we’ll get to see if the Democrat President is able to ‘survive it’.
 
Gonzomin said:
Not about the idiot in chief, but that does not mean they cannot hear the evidence and make a fair and honest decision. The difference is Moscow and Lindsey said they will not. They have no intention of being fair jurors. That is a terrible thing to say.
Click to expand...

But it’s terrible what Democrats have done to the impeachment process lol.
 
everybody is a player here: Roberts excluded, but i'm sure he'd rather not see this farce ..
~~
How can the Dems running for POTUS possibly be neutral/unbiased? start recusals there
 
dukkha said:
everybody is a player here: Roberts excluded, but i'm sure he'd rather not see this farce ..
~~
How can the Dems running for POTUS possibly be neutral/unbiased? start recusals there
Click to expand...

Right lol?

If this were an actual trial, it would have to be moved to another location because they would have to eliminate so many people from the jury pool for being biased against the defendant.

Impartiality is a joke. And everyone knows it.
 
Darth Omar said:
Right lol?

If this were an actual trial, it would have to be moved to another location because they would have to eliminate so many people from the jury pool for being biased against the defendant.

Impartiality is a joke. And everyone knows it.
Click to expand...
recall the House farce where Republicans got little due process but justified that as a political action instead?

Now the Dems are calling for impartiality! On what planet need the Senate listen to any of that!
 
Darth Omar said:
Right lol?

If this were an actual trial, it would have to be moved to another location because they would have to eliminate so many people from the jury pool for being biased against the defendant.

Impartiality is a joke. And everyone knows it.
Click to expand...

This is when you will hear the stupid leftists stutter "but this isn't a real trial"

It is a trial when it suits them, but isn't a trial when it doesn't

This is all easily solved. Mitch just passes a rule stating that anyone campaigning for President cannot participate due to inherent conflicts of interest. The problem of course will be the usual cabal of RINO fucksticks like Collins, Murcuntsky and Pierre Delecto who will preen for the leftists while claiming they are standing up for the rule of law.

Of course the NeverTrumpers secretly applaud the democrat party's efforts

I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am that I did not vote for Pierre Delecto in 2012. One of Trump's biggest mistakes was endorsing that duplicitous leftist prick. He might as well just switch parties already
 
Gonzomin said:
Not about the idiot in chief, but that does not mean they cannot hear the evidence and make a fair and honest decision. The difference is Moscow and Lindsey said they will not. They have no intention of being fair jurors. That is a terrible thing to say.
Click to expand...

Lets be clear.......this is a situation where the "jurors" have been hearing all the evidence that's out there for the last three years......if you think there is someone in the United States of America who hasn't already made a fair and honest decision on the facts, you're a fucking idiot.......and if you think that decision is Trump is guilty you are dumber than a fucking idiot.....
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Well, if the Senate votes to hear witnesses then future Houses can send partially investigated charges over to the Senate—with a straight line partisan vote by the majority party. Then they can sit on the articles while the investigation is completed, or not.

Or they can not send them at all, and proclaim that the president is ‘impeached for life’. Then we’ll get to see if the Democrat President is able to ‘survive it’.
Click to expand...

1) If Republicans shame Democrats for doing something, that doesn't make it any less shameless for Republicans to do the same thing later. Two wrongs do not make a right.

2) Were there witnesses at Clinton's impeachment trial?

3) Did Clinton take the stand and explain himself under oath for all of America to see? And exactly what is the reason Trump is not preparing to do the same thing? Is he too guilty to speak up for himself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top