Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Not at all, he admitted to what Trump was accused of. You just want to obfuscate. 

 

Ill play, why did Trump withhold aid according to Sen Alexander? 

 

 

 

You can "play" all by yourself, not interested in parseing words and petty semantics so you can twist and spin to fit your agenda.  The best is you claim I obfuscate..so often people try to defend their actions by accussing others of exactly what they are doing.

Posted
Just now, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

 

You can "play" all by yourself, not interested in parseing words and petty semantics so you can twist and spin to fit your agenda.  The best is you claim I obfuscate..so often people try to defend their actions by accussing others of exactly what they are doing.

But Alexander did say the House impeachment managers proved their case 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Tiberius said:

But Alexander did say the House impeachment managers proved their case 

disingenuous. what he said was that they proved their case and that it did not rise to a level for impeachment.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
On 1/21/2020 at 11:47 AM, snafu said:

Cue Ethel Merman:

 

There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights
There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

 

Better late than never!

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Foxx said:

disingenuous. what he said was that they proved their case and that it did not rise to a level for impeachment.

And there case was that Trump was extorting a foreign power for dirt in the election. Case proven 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

He doesn't need to be called, they have his testimony already but we aren't allowed to see it because Schiff.  So they can redact the name of the whistleblower from the transcript.  Remember the President and his counsel were barred from calling their own witnesses in the House.  Was that maybe a bit unfair and dangerous or nah?

 

Of the 18 witnesses called by the dems and the dems only,  just Atkinson's testimony has been sealed.  By Adam Schiff.  I wonder why?  

 

The House phase was not the trial phase.  It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach.  Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process.  I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated.  It wasn't the trial.

 

The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume.  They have majority and votes to call the shots.  Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him.  Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony?  I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And there case was that Trump was extorting a foreign power for dirt in the election. Case proven 

no, sorry. i think maybe you should ask @Bob in Mich about what the definition of extortion entails.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The House phase was not the trial phase.  It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach.  Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process.  I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated.  It wasn't the trial.

 

The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume.  They have majority and votes to call the shots.  Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him.  Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony?  I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson

 

 

House collects the evidence and submits it to Senate for trial....... Senates job is not gather evidence or call new witnesses

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The House phase was not the trial phase.  It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach.  Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process.  I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated.  It wasn't the trial.

 

The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume.  They have majority and votes to call the shots.  Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him.  Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony?  I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson

 

 

So they shouldn't hear ALL the evidence, as contrived as it was, why exactly?  

 

If you were accused of a crime would you be fine if your defense lawyers were barred from all pre-trial proceedings and the only evidence allowed at trial is that produced by the prosecution?  Dangerous to your ability to defend your innocence or nah?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The House phase was not the trial phase.  It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach.  Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process.  I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated.  It wasn't the trial.

 

The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume.  They have majority and votes to call the shots.  Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him.  Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony?  I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson

 

 

Because you don't know the facts, you're only embarrassing yourself now. 

 

Schiff is keeping the testimony classified in his committee. The public can't see it, it isn't in the impeachment record -- which means it can't be brought up by either side. 

 

Why would Schiff do that? Why aren't you outraged by that? 

 

Because you're a partisan hack who is very, very uninformed.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Foxx said:

whataboutism?

 

?

 

Worse than that

 

Lamar Alexander wasn't in Congress in 1998.

 

 

Don't tell Tibsy

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Worse than that

 

Lamar Alexander wasn't in Congress in 1998.

 

 

Don't tell Tibsy

tff. ?‍♀️

Posted

 

It’s looking increasingly like the curtain might soon be coming down on the Democrats’ impeachment circus, but Nancy Pelosi is handling it well.

 

Wait, no she isn’t — but she has come up with a name intended to glorify the House impeachment managers:

 

 

That’s what we thought she said. Pelosi obviously thinks “magnificent custodians of the Constitution” sounds better than “neverending impeachment circus ringleaders”

 

 

.

 

 

200.gif

 

Expect to see a lot of this the next few days

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...