The Impeachment Thread

#36,328
#36,328
hog88 said:
So far the Senate is following the same rules as they used during the Clinton trial so I don't understand all the bitching.

A look back at how Clinton’s impeachment trial unfolded
Click to expand...

It's theatrics. The stronger your case, the less you have to accuse the jury of treason if they don't agree to your version of the rules. No one in the room believes the Constitution/nay our very democracy is at risk here nor that national security was at any risk. Even the people presenting the case don't believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1 and hog88
#36,329
#36,329
volinbham said:
it is not a non-answer any more than you're childish giddiness about Turley/Graham saying there doesn't have to be a crime to impeach. that is not the entire defense or even a significant part. I'm betting none of the R Senators held that believe.

It's a silly game of "oooh, look what so and so said; that means..." Just pointing out that this process is rife with such instances.

so in that vein, Schiff made an argument on the floor that calling witnesses that had already been heard from satisfies the "calling witnesses" standard.
Click to expand...

You acted like something turned on the new witness/prior witness distinction. It doesn't sound like that's the case. Accordingly, it's a distinction without a difference. Fact remains that the Senate had witnesses for Clinton impeachment and they may not do the same here. That's a distinction with a difference.
 
#36,331
#36,331
evillawyer said:
You acted like something turned on the new witness/prior witness distinction. It doesn't sound like that's the case. Accordingly, it's a distinction without a difference. Fact remains that the Senate had witnesses for Clinton impeachment and they may not do the same here. That's a distinction with a difference.
Click to expand...

no - I was pointing out that Schiff argued that calling witnesses that have already been called satisfies the witness requirement.
 
#36,333
#36,333
evillawyer said:
You acted like something turned on the new witness/prior witness distinction. It doesn't sound like that's the case. Accordingly, it's a distinction without a difference. Fact remains that the Senate had witnesses for Clinton impeachment and they may not do the same here. That's a distinction with a difference.
Click to expand...

And the Senate may actually allow witnesses, the motions Shummer filed were premature per the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#36,334
#36,334
volinbham said:
can't read eh? maybe try Hooked on Phonics - oh crap you can't read this can you. nevermind :)
Click to expand...

No, it's just that everything he says is so fraught with lies and drivel that it's become meaningless and not worth anyone's time. If I want to hear fiction on a constant basis I'll turn on Fox news or buy a book from Audible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger and TN Ribs
#36,335
#36,335
Nadler shows clip of young Graham saying high crime ‘doesn’t have to be a crime’

Nadler responded to the criticism that Trump’s actions don’t amount to a “high crime” by quoting one of the president’s closest allies: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
Nadler showed a 21-year-old video clip of Graham, who then served as a House manager during the 1999 Clinton impeachment, explaining what he understood the Founders to have meant by “high crimes.”
“What’s a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth,” then-Rep. Graham said. “I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. It doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office, and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”
 
#36,336
#36,336
Coug said:
No, it's just that everything he says is so fraught with lies and drivel that it's become meaningless and not worth anyone's time. If I want to hear fiction on a constant basis I'll turn on Fox news or buy a book from Audible.
Click to expand...

it was just an attempt at joke
 
#36,337
#36,337
MontyPython said:
Nadler shows clip of young Graham saying high crime ‘doesn’t have to be a crime’

Nadler responded to the criticism that Trump’s actions don’t amount to a “high crime” by quoting one of the president’s closest allies: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
Nadler showed a 21-year-old video clip of Graham, who then served as a House manager during the 1999 Clinton impeachment, explaining what he understood the Founders to have meant by “high crimes.”
“What’s a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth,” then-Rep. Graham said. “I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. It doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office, and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”
Click to expand...

you got him - now wait for 3 days of the defense showing Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi etc contradicting what they are now saying.

fun for everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1, Orangeburst and 4 others
#36,338
#36,338
Coug said:
No, it's just that everything he says is so fraught with lies and drivel that it's become meaningless and not worth anyone's time. If I want to hear fiction on a constant basis I'll turn on Fox news or buy a book from Audible.
Click to expand...

It’s almost like calling somebody a racist , using the race card for everything , comparing people to Hitler , saying the world will end if we don’t .., , anything overused loses its affect
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#36,349
#36,349
volinbham said:
It's theatrics. The stronger your case, the less you have to accuse the jury of treason if they don't agree to your version of the rules. No one in the room believes the Constitution/nay our very democracy is at risk here nor that national security was at any risk. Even the people presenting the case don't believe it.
Click to expand...

That is so wrong that it makes you look ridiculous.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top