Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Norman Alexander]

I don't give two poops how minimal the penalty is or who the defendant is. It is the government going after somebody and they are trying to cutoff the appeal process.

No. Quite the opposite.

They are TRYING, despite all the opposition from Trump, to give him a fair trial. That includes the opportunity to bring refutations, his evidence, his witnesses and even to step up and attempt to refute the accusations in person should he so wish. Is that not fair?

But the people who are attempting to prevent this happening are NOT the Dems or the Senate. It's the GOP and specifically The Turtle, who has already proudly stated he is taking his marching orders from the White House, i.e. Donny himself.

So Donny is bitching about a situation that he himself is creating. Nobody else. It's almost like he is trying to get sympathy for "Look what you made me do!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ted Cruz is having a hallway news conference lying to the public that there is nothing different between McConnell's proposed rules and those used in the Clinton trial.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't give two poops how minimal the penalty is or who the defendant is. It is the government going after somebody and they are trying to cutoff the appeal process.

Can a post be any more ignorant than this?

Nobody is going after somebody. This isn't a criminal trial. It's more a hearing than a trial. And the worst thing that can happen to Trump is being removed from office and disqualified from holding office.

Also, in any process, there is an end of the right of appeal. You can't appeal a SCOTUS decision either. And it takes 67 votes to convict or remove Trump from office. How much more difficult do you think the process should be?

 

[alfaniner]

I get the distinct impression that some of the Republican Senators are hearing the details of this case for the first time. "Holy ****, he did that? I'm going to have to think about this some more..."

 

[BobTheCoward]

Can a post be any more ignorant than this?

Nobody is going after somebody. This isn't a criminal trial. It's more a hearing than a trial. And the worst thing that can happen to Trump is being removed from office and disqualified from holding office.

Also, in any process, there is an end of the right of appeal. You can't appeal a SCOTUS decision either. And it takes 67 votes to convict or remove Trump from office. How much more difficult do you think the process should be?

The additional difficulty should be the house needing to complete all testimony first and complete the appeal process.

As I said, I don't care if it is a zero consequence censure. It is the government doing that and it meets my standard for it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Trump

"As you can see, now I have been completely exonerated....My democrat persecutors put in their place and it's been proven to be nothing more than a vindictive witch hunt.... Let us not let them win .... I am stong enough to lead this great nation no matter what is thrown at me by those that hate our great country.....Great country......The greatest country.

And I will continue to be your great president....Great president....The greatest president of this great nation....The greatest nation."

Loads of idiot voters

"He is right! They are just picking on him.....Let's all vote Trump back in!"

While there are a lot of idiots, do you really think that people that have looked at the evidence and want him gone would really change their minds because a GOP controlled Senate refuses to conduct more obvious then a show trial before acquitting? It do you think that such a show trial and the President skiting about being let off might just make those people more angry towards him and those that let him go?

 

[acbytesla]

The additional difficulty should be the house needing to complete all testimony first and complete the appeal process.

As I said, I don't care if it is a zero consequence censure. It is the government doing that and it meets my standard for it.

Bob, either you're ignorant and acting stupid or you're being dishonest.

Want to leave it up to the courts and the partisan SCOTUS to drag out the process of deciding if a House subpoena is valid? How long do you think that could take?

Do you get that SCOTUS accepted another case that could jeopardize the Affordable Care Act and has refuse to rule until after the next election? Justice delayed is justice denied. It could take a year before SCOTUS got around to the subpoenas.

And the Senate is now voting against seeing pretty much all the documents. And the White House lawyers are lying and lying and lying in what in debate is known as a "gish gallop". And considering the time limits imposed, it forces the House managers to use much of their time correcting the lies giving them less time to present their case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get the distinct impression that some of the Republican Senators are hearing the details of this case for the first time. "Holy ****, he did that? I'm going to have to think about this some more..."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Tero]

Watching the trial on actual TV. So I can hit the mute button for Trump lawyers. From what little I heard: Here is their case:
Presenting documents against Trump and hearing witnesses would be unfair to Trump.

 

[Stacyhs]

Watching the trial on actual TV. So I can hit the mute button for Trump lawyers. From what little I heard: Here is their case:
Presenting documents against Trump and hearing witnesses would be unfair to Trump.

HOAX! WITCH HUNT! NOT A CRIME! HARASSMENT! NO EVIDENCE!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Ted Cruz is having a hallway news conference lying to the public that there is nothing different between McConnell's proposed rules and those used in the Clinton trial.

Whoo-hoo, Lyin’ Ted returns!

And let me just add, I always did wonder about my dad. Oh, and my wife really is unattractive, isn’t she.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bob, either you're ignorant and acting stupid or you're being dishonest.

Want to leave it up to the courts and the partisan SCOTUS to drag out the process of deciding if a House subpoena is valid? How long do you think that could take?

Do you get that SCOTUS accepted another case that could jeopardize the Affordable Care Act and has refuse to rule until after the next election? Justice delayed is justice denied. It could take a year before SCOTUS got around to the subpoenas.

And the Senate is now voting against seeing pretty much all the documents. And the White House lawyers are lying and lying and lying in what in debate is known as a "gish gallop". And considering the time limits imposed, it forces the House managers to use much of their time correcting the lies giving them less time to present their case.

I don't care. If the house wants to target an individual citizen, then they need to suck it up and go through that.

It is neither ignorance, dishonesty, nor stupidity. We both agree on the result of that. We both agree what the current situation and stakes are. I simply value things differently than you.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't care. If the house wants to target an individual citizen, then they need to suck it up and go through that.

It is neither ignorance, dishonesty, nor stupidity. We both agree on the result of that. We both agree what the current situation and stakes are. I simply value things differently than you.

Thats right, you think this all a suicide pact. Well, given your idea of what the process should be, it might as well be one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoo-hoo, Lyin’ Ted returns!

And let me just add, I always did wonder about my dad. Oh, and my wife really is unattractive, isn’t she.

And what was that bit about nobody messes with my wife?



Anyone know what McConnell's quorum call was about? Did he just need a pee break?


They must need 2/3 of the Senate to stop debate. McConnell is probably fuming he isn't quite God in the Senate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Thats right, you think this all a suicide pact. Well, given your idea or what the process should be, it might as well be one.

One again...

If you read part.of the Constitution, and it doesn't read like a suicide pact, then saying it is not a suicide pact is true but pointless.

If part does read like a suicide pact, then the statement, "it is not a suicide pact" is wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

One again...

If you read part.of the Constitution, and it doesn't read like a suicide pact, then saying it is not a suicide pact is true but pointless.

If part does read like a suicide pact, then the statement, "it is not a suicide pact" is wrong.

I'm done with you Bob. You teach us all how absurd it is getting into a dialogue with you. I guess you had to prove it to me again. Thanks.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm done with you Bob. You teach us all how absurd it is getting into a dialogue with you. I guess you had to prove it to me again. Thanks.

Look, I'm not coming here and saying my positions are not absurd. I know they are out there and based on axioms far removed from what most people acknowledge.

 

[smartcooky]

If anyone had any doubt about whether or not corruption runs right through the Republican side of the Senate all the way to the top, the recent behaviour of Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsay has well and truly removed it.

 

[Stacyhs]

If anyone had any doubt about whether or not corruption runs right through the Republican side of the Senate all the way to the top, the recent behaviour of Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsay has well and truly removed it.

I couldn't agree more. They are Republicans first and foremost.

 

[acbytesla]

Look, I'm not coming here and saying my positions are not absurd. I know they are out there and based on axioms far removed from what most people acknowledge.

I don't care. Almost every one in the forum understands what it means to be "Bobbed". We respond at first and then in the second or third post we start to see the twisted sophistry which I guess is some kind of game to you.

I'm just not interested in playing your games.