The Democrats witness dilemma

[Ross Dolan]

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.

 

[Darth Omar]

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.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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/opin...0191217-fwmvwhn45vdxreurdtvblj6wla-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.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

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.

 

[Micawber]

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.

 

[Earl]

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.

 

[Earl]

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

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

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

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.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

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.

 

[Earl]

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,

 

[Earl]

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

 

[Darth Omar]

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?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

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.

 

[Into the Night]

What did the investigation have to do with the U. S. government? And what investigation revealed any corruption?

Repetitious question already answered. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

 

[Into the Night]

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.

What crime?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hello Darth,



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.

Trump detractors are not impartial. They are heavily prejudiced. They refuse to even consider the possibility that Trump is Innocent.

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

They have been conditioned to accept lies which were repeated over and over. The only way to get them 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 they demand that the Senate prove their case for them.

Trials have witnesses and it looks like they just couldn't do their own due diligence.