America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 years ago by frankj1. 76 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Random impeachment trial thought.
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Why do we fear the witches more than we do the people who burned them alive?

tonygraz Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,243
History doesn't exactly bear that out. But you should act some republican congress members.
frankj1 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
act=axe
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Witches get stitches!
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
My relative got stoned in Salem.
RayR Online
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Those basterd Yankee Puritans!ram27bat
They've always liked human sacrifice.
frankj1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
very good performance by the defense yesterday
CheapPrick Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 11-25-2019
Posts: 535
It's just another bit of drama designed to keep you occupied while Biden dissects the 2nd amendment.
RayR Online
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Sovereignty Still Rests with the People, Not Congress.

Somebody clue in House Impeachment Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) He seems to be confused.

Bovard clobbers him of course and the rest of the Parliament of Whores....

Quote:
Politicians lustfully rejoicing at their own power is the ultimate “dog bites man” story that goes unremarked in Washington. The Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump included one such vivid vignette, an ominous warning that Congress recognizes no limit over its rightful sway over the economy and the lives of American citizens.

House Impeachment Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is being lionized for his speeches in the trial. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) hailed Raskin as “America’s professor.” In his final pitch to senators on Thursday, Raskin included the usual hackneyed references to Abraham Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence. Then Raskin recited the first “We the People” sentence of the preamble of the Constitution and declared: “You see what just happened? The sovereign power of the people… flowed right into Congress.”

That line may have caused some Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves, and we’ll return to this point in a moment.

Raskin continued, waving his arms and becoming more emotional as he recited the powers that Congress possessed: “Comprehensive vast powers that all of you know so well! The power to regulate commerce, domestically and internationally, the power to raise the budget and taxes and to spend money and govern the seat of government and on and on and on.” Raskin then fervently declared that Congress was also entitled to “all other powers that would be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. That’s all of us!”

This “all of us” makes Congress sound like a wonderful club; too bad you and I aren’t in it.


Read On...

https://www.aier.org/article/sovereignty-still-rests-with-the-people-not-congress/

frankj1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
frankj1 wrote:
very good performance by the defense yesterday

in retrospect, may have been disastrous!
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Did they find CROS..?? Huh
DrMaddVibe Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
Does anyone remember thinking that the judicial system in America was fair and just? You know, a place where your side was represented fairly and heard without predicated bias? Going into a court room meant meting out a decision based on laws where both sides represent their case with evidence and those sitting in decision hearing the case would do so based on fact. Remember when they didn't legislate from the bench? What about that cute little statue of Lady Justice where she's blindfolded holding a sword with one hand and a scale to balance? Yeah.

Well, America has been through a ton during my lifetime. We grew up watching films like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and "12 Angry Men" and even "Kramer Vs. Kramer". Reading books in classes like "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Anatomy Of A Murder" were almost prerequisites. Now, after the OJ trials who really believes in impartiality in a courtroom? Doesn't really matter the level either. Local, State, Supreme Court...they're all bought and paid for. There's the level you can operate by and then there's the level the wealthy use. It's a Jim Crow mentality dispensing Justice. You...yeah you...go over there and get your Justice, this one isn't for you.

Look at this latest impeachment trial. It a farce. A comical pathetic joke. A watered down Kabuki theater with meat puppets. This isn't by the book. This isn't Justice. This is a fraud being perpetuated in front of your eyes and you're told to eat it or else. Evidence being manipulated, lies being told, a presiding "judge" that sits over the whole thing that's really a witness, a jury member and wants to be an executioner. Sen Patrick Leahy, elected back in 1974. 80 years old. He isn't observing what and how the Constitution is supposed to be. In any way shape or form.

Leahy, the longest-serving member of the Democratic majority, is the Senate pro tempore, meaning he is the presiding officer in the absence of the vice president, who is the president of the Senate.

He is presiding instead of Roberts as as the Constitution calls for the chief justice to preside over trials of sitting presidents, not former presidents.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/13/leahy-scolds-chamber-laughing-trump-lawyer-during-impeachment-trial/4472974001/


This is a railroad job because the swamp still fears Trump. Fears him. Oh, there's plenty of hate to fuel their fear. That's what they're operating under and doing a disservice to America. I can't wait to hear the Left bemoan "Well, he's been impeached TWICE". "That should eliminate him from being elected again!", you can almost script it. Trying to manipulate the election process with cancel culture. Wake up people. You're being lied to. You can read the Constitution for yourselves. You can read the Federalist Papers which laid out how the Constitution was going to operate so you could vote on it. You can read the conventions that debated it. Our Founding Fathers understood the yoke of Tyranny because they lived under it. Right now, I'm watching those in power put that yoke on people and they're putting it on and liking it.
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
This is the beginning of the 2024 election.
RayR Online
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Yep, That's the gist of it DMV. Lady Justice has big boobs and that's enough to make the proles believe there is still truth, justice and the American way.
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
Acquitted .

Wow didn’t see that coming Sarcasm
Gene363 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
ZRX1200 wrote:
Acquitted .

Wow didn’t see that coming Sarcasm


Yup, on one can seduce fido like the parliament of whores.
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
ZRX1200 wrote:
Acquitted .

Wow didn’t see that coming Sarcasm

that's why I made dinner during today's show.
Already had a spoiler alert...
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
Witches get stitches!


excellent!
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
History doesn't exactly bear that out. But you should act some republican congress members.


obligatory spelling error aside, you can't possibly be serious.
A. history DOES bear this out.
B. why ask the republicans when it is the democrats doing the burning?

Don't be that guy.
The partisan-over-truth guy.
Well, don't remain that guy.

In the meantime, stay safe.


Burner02 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
A lot of butt hurt and wasted time over one being grounded from an European vacation and another for he and his family's corruption being exposed.
delta1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
was this an example of American justice? maybe...

but impeachments are definitely not a procedure of the American judicial system. Rather it is a Constitutional political process that empowers Congress to exert some oversight on a POTUS. As such, all impeachments of POTUS that have gone to trial are political and partisan events. The results have all been along party lines, so this was predictable.

This one garnered more votes to convict by the POTUS' own party than any other in history. Johnson and Clinton did not have one Senator from his party vote to convict; Trump has had 1, and then 7 of his party's Senators vote for his conviction in his two trials.


wonder if Dems would've convicted Hillary or ___________(D) under the same facts?

or if GOP senators would've voted to convict if Trump was a D?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
delta1 wrote:
was this an example of American justice? maybe...

but impeachments are definitely not a procedure of the American judicial system. Rather it is a Constitutional political process that empowers Congress to exert some oversight on a POTUS. As such, all impeachments of POTUS that have gone to trial are political and partisan events. The results have all been along party lines, so this was predictable. This one garnered more votes to convict by the POTUS' own party than any other in history.



The proles got the show trial they wanted.

Party is over, get to work.
delta1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
that's what Biden has said all along..."I got a job to do"
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
DrMaddVibe wrote:
The proles got the show trial they wanted.

Party is over, get to work.

Yup.
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
It's not over... everyone who voted not to impeach will be harrassed and humiliated by da left and the liberal media... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
and the 7 GOP Senators who voted to convict Trump must now be frightened for their lives...


can you say " Hang Burr, hang Cassidy, hang Collins, hang Murkowski, hang Romney, hang Sasse, hang Toomey"?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
delta1 wrote:
and the 7 GOP Senators who voted to convict Trump must now be frightened for their lives...


can you say " Hang Burr, hang Cassidy, hang Collins, hang Murkowski, hang Romney, hang Sasse, hang Toomey"?


Meh...they think they're patriots!horse
delta1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
what do Trump's followers, like the ones who stormed the Capitol, think of them?
RayR Online
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
delta1 wrote:
what do Trump's followers, like the ones who stormed the Capitol, think of them?


They want to cancel them naturally.
CheapPrick Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-25-2019
Posts: 535
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Does anyone remember thinking that the judicial system in America was fair and just? You know, a place where your side was represented fairly and heard without predicated bias? Going into a court room meant meting out a decision based on laws where both sides represent their case with evidence and those sitting in decision hearing the case would do so based on fact. Remember when they didn't legislate from the bench? What about that cute little statue of Lady Justice where she's blindfolded holding a sword with one hand and a scale to balance? Yeah.

.



No....
Krazeehorse Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
2024 is just around the corner. I wonder what congress' next move is. There's certainly no time to legislate. (And that's probably a good thing)
Speyside Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Subverting the constitution is intolerable. I think the question of being constitutional should have been decided by SCOTUS before any trial started.
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
here's an idea that both Trump's defense attorneys and Mitch McConnell proposed: hold Trump accountable in a criminal court of law...

will Trump get justice, or will it desert him...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
Speyside wrote:
Subverting the constitution is intolerable. I think the question of being constitutional should have been decided by SCOTUS before any trial started.


Chief Justice Roberts pretty much stated that by not participating.

It was the bloodlust of Pelosi that stymied the mob frenzy.
rfenst Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
Speyside wrote:
Subverting the constitution is intolerable. I think the question of being constitutional should have been decidnced by SCOTUS before any trial started.

Thankfully, I think it all went well with Leahey presiding. A litigation party has to show actual controversy, actual damages or the likelihood of reparable harm, among other standards, to go to court for damages or to compel performance. Both
sides seemed fine without Roberts. The way he did it, Roberts was free to rule from SCOTUS on any procedural impeachment conflicts that may have risen.
tailgater Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
what do Trump's followers, like the ones who stormed the Capitol, think of them?


And what do the liberals (Biden followers, no doubt) who burned our cities for the better part of 2020 think of the republicans who voted to acquit? Complicit with the media and leftist politicians they're already slinging sh*t their way.
Burner02 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Why did the left give up so easily on calling their hearsay witness?

Guessing Nancy and Chuck did not want to take the stand when called by the right.

Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
delta1 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
her statement was read and placed into the record...GOP said they were gonna call 100's of witnesses to drag out the trial for weeks/months if Dems wanted to call witnesses...

political calculation about the value of a long impeachment trial, potential evidence to be gained by any witness vs. confidence in the case presented to that point

compared to; a shortened trial freeing the Senate to take it's part in determining Biden's agenda
delta1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
tailgater wrote:
And what do the liberals (Biden followers, no doubt) who burned our cities for the better part of 2020 think of the republicans who voted to acquit? Complicit with the media and leftist politicians they're already slinging sh*t their way.


this liberal thinks that everyone who committed a crime during the protests of the summer should be arrested and held accountable by our criminal justice system...

just as everybody who committed a crime protesting the results of a fair and free election and then trying to stop a lawful Constitutional process should be arrested and held accountable...


the difference between the two is substantial; those who had an opportunity to be impartial jurors at Trump's second impeachment trial charged with inciting the crimes that occurred at the Capitol violated their oaths as much as the POTUS violated his oath in doing his part of the events of Jan 6...

the party of the Constitution has turned its back to it, and has accepted willful violence to become part of the election process...

the protests of the summer were much less significant in comparison...cons said so much in telling those people they had no legitimate reason to protest
Burner02 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
delta1 wrote:
her statement was read and placed into the record...GOP said they were gonna call 100's of witnesses to drag out the trial for weeks/months if Dems wanted to call witnesses...

political calculation about the value of a long impeachment trial, potential evidence to be gained by any witness vs. confidence in the case presented to that point

compared to; a shortened trial freeing the Senate to take it's part in determining Biden's agenda




Having statement read is not the same as taking the stand. Hard to ask a statement a direct question on what you knew and when did you know.
delta1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
I agree...her statement helped the Dem case by "confirming" what McCarthy said during his phone call with Trump where he pleaded with Trump to call off the mob, to no avail...Dems could have called MCCarthy, but they had a video if him on Fox News from that day, pleading with Trump to call off the mob...they showed several other GOP officials, including Chris Christie, imploring Trump to call off his supporters on live Fox News TV

here's the statement: https://jhb.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402082


but if the GOP was really OK with her as a witness, why negotiate for 100 plus witnesses and threaten to prolong the trial for weeks/months?

Here's what Graham said about witnesses:

"Graham has also previously made a point of the fact the House impeachment procedure did not call in any witnesses. Last month Graham said on Fox News even "one witness" would be grounds for the trial to take "weeks if not months" for the Senate to determine a verdict."

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-blames-liberal-media-prior-impeachment-vote-says-bring-witnesses-1569130
rfenst Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
Burner02 wrote:
Why did the left give up so easily on calling their hearsay witness?
Guessing Nancy and Chuck did not want to take the stand when called by the right.
Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.

Decisions to call a witness are made during trial depending how things are going. If you feel you kicked @$$ in the trial (like the D's do), you want the trial over with ASAP, and might not call any witnesses to expedite or not take a risk with that witness. Other times decisions to call or not to call witnesses are made by negotiated agreement of the other parties. That's the beauty of the judge allowing the attorneys to come to the bench so that their arguments and negotiations are worked out then in private...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
rfenst wrote:
Thankfully, I think it all went well with Leahey presiding. A litigation party has to show actual controversy, actual damages or the likelihood of reparable harm, among other standards, to go to court for damages or to compel performance. Both
sides seemed fine without Roberts. The way he did it, Roberts was free to rule from SCOTUS on any procedural impeachment conflicts that may have risen.



With Chief Justice Roberts not presiding it showed it was unconstitutional.


Shame YOU didn't get that. It was an impeachment process not a civil trial.

Next time we meet...we're talking about this.
tonygraz Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,243
Unconstitutional - isn't that the new slogan of the old republican party.
tonygraz Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,243
ZRX1200 wrote:
My relative got stoned in Salem.



Mine got hung.
frankj1 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrMaddVibe wrote:
With Chief Justice Roberts not presiding it showed it was unconstitutional.


Shame YOU didn't get that. It was an impeachment process not a civil trial.

Next time we meet...we're talking about this.

no, it showed that he is only required to preside if the POTUS/defendant is in office.
frankj1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
tonygraz wrote:
Mine got hung.

I got hung.
It's a blessing and a curse.
izonfire Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
frankj1 wrote:
I got hung.
It's a blessing and a curse.

Didja choke up on it???
Brewha Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
I am impressed with the shear number of Trump co-conspirators that protected their fuhrer.
Those boys know how to swallow some chain.

I see Moscow Mitch is starting to walk it back to save himself though...
Burner02 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
rfenst wrote:
Decisions to call a witness are made during trial depending how things are going. If you feel you kicked @$$ in the trial (like the D's do), you want the trial over with ASAP, and might not call any witnesses to expedite or not take a risk with that witness. Other times decisions to call or not to call witnesses are made by negotiated agreement of the other parties. That's the beauty of the judge allowing the attorneys to come to the bench so that their arguments and negotiations are worked out then in private...


Thanks for the fyi but I already had a pretty good idea how those things work from a previous occupation. What you and Al missed in my comment was that the Dems decided not to call their witness after they determined the Cons were going to call Queen Nancy as their first witness. I would be willing to bet she would/will not testify unless she had no other choose. To great of a likelihood of her committing perjury.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>