Kevbeau Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 The Democrats are tanking, right? Looking for that high 2024 first round pick? 6
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 2:23 PM, Tiberius said: Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble Expand IF PROVEN. You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case. You can't. You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron. But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either. 1 1
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 2:48 PM, SoCal Deek said: I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately! Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. Expand What actual crime did the previous administration commit? On 12/5/2019 at 3:11 PM, DC Tom said: IF PROVEN. You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case. You can't. You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron. But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either. Expand Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:14 PM, Gary Busey said: Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday Expand Turley made my point very clearly. 1
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said: Turley made my point very clearly. Expand I'm at least glad you'll consider new facts as new witnesses are introduced.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:11 PM, DC Tom said: IF PROVEN. You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case. You can't. You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron. But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either. Expand It's been proven "but first I need a favor, though." And the "get over it" comment stop being so blindly stupid, oh wait, you can't On 12/5/2019 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said: Turley made my point very clearly. Expand The point that since Trump won't allow evidence to be produced or witnesses to testify that you can't prove anything? Do do you chase your tail like a dog?
RochesterRob Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 It's quite obvious that the Dems are trying to live out some kind of Salem Witch Trial type fantasy where people can be condemned based on whim or preference (lack of). I guess that they fell asleep during class when the discussion turned to how indiscriminate the process turned out to be. Can't wait for Pelosi to be tied to the dunking chair and then told "if guilty you will just use your witchcraft to escape drowning and if you drown your status as a good Christian will be confirmed).
B-Man Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 IT’S A SAFE BET HE WOULDN’T FEEL SO WEARY IF IMPEACHMENT WERE A WINNER: Democrat announces retirement, says Russia probe and impeachment inquiry ‘have rendered my soul weary.’ "It’s always a constitutional crisis when liberals don’t get what they want." That can serve as my reaction to yesterday's hearing with the law professors, and it's why 3 other lawprofs urging panic, anguish, and quick, dramatic action were outweighed by Jonathan Turley's telling everyone to calm down: . 1
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:21 PM, Gary Busey said: I'm at least glad you'll consider new facts as new witnesses are introduced. Expand There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts. Just personal opinions. That's the entire problem. Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events. Everything they knew was from other people's reports. You know what that makes them? "Not witnesses." Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime. 3 1
John Adams Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, DC Tom said: There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts. Just personal opinions. That's the entire problem. Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events. Everything they knew was from other people's reports. You know what that makes them? "Not witnesses." Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime. Expand More like expert testimony actually.
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:14 PM, Gary Busey said: What actual crime did the previous administration commit? Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday Expand First of all, you don’t know if a crime has been committed until you look into it....which is EXACTLY what President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to do in conjunction with the US Attorney General. The exact right thing to do. Second, you idiot, Schiff didn’t call on anyone yesterday! This was the Judiciary Committee chaired by Nader....but if Humpty Dumpster had asked me to speak I’d have been better prepared then those three cartoon characters that they had bloviating under ‘oath’.
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, DC Tom said: There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts. Just personal opinions. That's the entire problem. Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events. Everything they knew was from other people's reports. You know what that makes them? "Not witnesses." Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime. Expand Expert witnesses are called all the time. 1
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) On 12/5/2019 at 3:29 PM, John Adams said: More like expert testimony actually. Expand directly influenced by personal opinion, for three of the 'witnesses' anyways. which for all intent and purposes, renders their 'expert testimony' meaningless. Edited December 5, 2019 by Foxx
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:31 PM, Gary Busey said: Expert witnesses are called all the time. Expand Not to testify that hearsay is fact. 4
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:31 PM, DC Tom said: Not to testify that hearsay is fact. Expand Like you said - their testimony was equivalent to an amicus brief. There will be more hearings and fact witnesses.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, DC Tom said: There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts. Just personal opinions. That's the entire problem. Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events. Everything they knew was from other people's reports. You know what that makes them? "Not witnesses." Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime. Expand Well Tom, that's because they were not factual witnesses, they were constitutional experts
SoCal Deek Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:31 PM, Gary Busey said: Expert witnesses are called all the time. Expand I’m glad they called an ‘expert’ on the origins of the President’s sons birth name. We needed that expert incite. I’ve actually been an expert witness. That comment alone would have RUINED me as an expert in anything!
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:31 PM, Foxx said: directly influenced by personal opinion, for three of the 'witnesses' anyways. which for all intent and purposes, renders their 'expert opinion' meaningless. Expand For all 4 'witnesses'
Foxx Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:35 PM, Gary Busey said: Like you said - their testimony was equivalent to an amicus brief. There will be more hearings and fact witnesses. Expand the next fact witness called will be the first. 2 1 1
Warren Zevon Posted December 5, 2019 Posted December 5, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 3:36 PM, SoCal Deek said: incite. Expand insight
Recommended Posts