Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Well, being one of those ultra righties yourself, of course you would deny reality, and acuse the other of being divorced from it. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You aren't all so dumb as to not be able to put two and two together, or to not know that in a real trial, if the truth is the goal, then relevant witnesses and documentary evidence are admissable and necessary. You have all made it clear, that the truth isn't what you seek. So, against all the evidence to the contrary, you are defending a rogue president over your country, possibly because it was you who put him there in the first place. If it's just pride, then overcome your pride, and admit to facts when you see them instead of making excuses, or rationalizations for them in your own head.
    Aww, idn't 'e precious?
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      The constitution specifies that the Senators during an impeachment trial are to take an oath of impartiality, in a way that House members are not required to when deciding whether to pass articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.
      So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all? To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?

      It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial? Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial, they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
      Last edited by Sparko; 01-21-2020, 02:23 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all?
        Constitutionally, yes. The constitution requires the Senate to take an oath of impartiality, not the House.

        This is because the system is modeled on a police criminal investigation and prosecution. It's the responsibility of an impartial court to decide the truth, not to the policemen doing the investigating. The various rights to a fair trial apply to the court proceedings, not to the investigation which proceeds it. In the same manner, the constitution gives freedom to the House, but has requirements of the Senate to be impartial. You can personally dislike the way the constitution organizes this if you like, but perhaps you should pretend to respect the constitution like Republicans try to trick people into thinking they do?

        To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?
        Neither is true. The Republicans called witnesses and they cross examined Dem witnesses.

        It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial?
        Yes, because the House investigative committees weren't the court, they were the equivalent of a police interrogation room. The constitutional setup is that the Senate is the court. The Chief Justice from SCOTUS is presiding and the constitution specifies that senators are to take an oath of impartiality.

        Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial,
        I'm sure they'd settle for one. I would like one.

        they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
        They certainly want their key witnesses to be heard. Nothing, of course, stops Republicans bringing additional witnesses they deem relevant or exculpatory as they are controlling proceedings.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Constitutionally, yes. The constitution requires the Senate to take an oath of impartiality, not the House.

          This is because the system is modeled on a police criminal investigation and prosecution. It's the responsibility of an impartial court to decide the truth, not to the policemen doing the investigating. The various rights to a fair trial apply to the court proceedings, not to the investigation which proceeds it. In the same manner, the constitution gives freedom to the House, but has requirements of the Senate to be impartial. You can personally dislike the way the constitution organizes this if you like, but perhaps you should pretend to respect the constitution like Republicans try to trick people into thinking they do?

          Neither is true. The Republicans called witnesses and they cross examined Dem witnesses.

          Yes, because the House investigative committees weren't the court, they were the equivalent of a police interrogation room. The constitutional setup is that the Senate is the court. The Chief Justice from SCOTUS is presiding and the constitution specifies that senators are to take an oath of impartiality.

          I'm sure they'd settle for one. I would like one.

          They certainly want their key witnesses to be heard. Nothing, of course, stops Republicans bringing additional witnesses they deem relevant or exculpatory as they are controlling proceedings.
          Wow. smh.

          No, it is not "modeled on a police investigation," Star. Where do you get this stuff?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Wow. smh.

            No, it is not "modeled on a police investigation," Star. Where do you get this stuff?
            Wow, are you that ignorant of the basics? Makes me wonder how many other conservatives have no clue about what's happening.

            Impeachment articles are the equivalent of bringing an indictment in criminal law, essentially being a statement of charges. That's the model this all works on. Now that the charges have been filed by the House investigation, there is a court proceeding in the Senate. That's how an impeachment works.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Wow, are you that ignorant of the basics? Makes me wonder how many other conservatives have no clue about what's happening.

              Impeachment articles are the equivalent of bringing an indictment in criminal law, essentially being a statement of charges. That's the model this all works on. Now that the charges have been filed by the House investigation, there is a court proceeding in the Senate. That's how an impeachment works.
              You said "police investigation"

              Indictments happen AFTER a police investigation and an arrest. And yes police investigations have to be fair and impartial and based on actual evidence. As do indictments.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                So it was OK for the House to be completely biased and not impartial at all? To shut down the Republicans from calling witnesses or cross examining the Dem's witnesses without interference?

                It was fine for them to hold a Kangaroo court to impeach Trump, but now the Senate has to be impartial? Except the Dems don't want an impartial senate trial, they want a do-over and to stack the court with their witnesses again.
                It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.
                  Did you even watch the proceedings????

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                    It is posts like this from you and the other Trump defenders here that prove the impact of propaganda. The republicans weren't shut down from calling relevant witnesess, they weren't shut down from cross examining, they weren't locked out of the process, though they did refuse to participate in many instances. Even Trump and his lawyers were invited to come in with their own witnesses and cross examinations, but of course they refused as well. You're problem is that you simply believe what you want to hear, which is a big problem for the truth.
                    Talk about proving the impact of propaganda.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Did you even watch the proceedings????
                      Yes, and I watched the entire opening arguments yesterday as well when the presidents council continued that blatant lie about the House proceedings in front of the chief Justice. If you honestly believe that the republicans were shut out from the House proceedings, that they couldn't call and question witnesses, that Trump and his lawyers were shut out from the process, then you are just wrong and have fallen for the lies that claimed they were.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Yes, and I watched the entire opening arguments yesterday as well when the presidents council continued that blatant lie about the House proceedings in front of the chief Justice. If you honestly believe that the republicans were shut out from the House proceedings, that they couldn't call and question witnesses, that Trump and his lawyers were shut out from the process, then you are just wrong and have fallen for the lies that claimed they were.
                        I am talking about the HOUSE proceedings.

                        If you did you would have seen Nadler constantly shutting down Republicans when they were asking questions of witnesses, and you would know that Nadler also disallowed the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call, like the Whistleblower, Hunter and Joe Biden, etc. They made sure the impeachment proceedings were as one sided as they possibly could. But now that it is in the Senate, they are whining how unfair the Senate is to do the very same thing they did.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I am talking about the HOUSE proceedings.

                          If you did you would have seen Nadler constantly shutting down Republicans when they were asking questions of witnesses, and you would know that Nadler also disallowed the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call, like the Whistleblower, Hunter and Joe Biden, etc. They made sure the impeachment proceedings were as one sided as they possibly could. But now that it is in the Senate, they are whining how unfair the Senate is to do the very same thing they did.
                          You said that republicans couldn't call witnesses, that they couldn't cross examine witnesses, and others, perhaps you yourself, I don't know, have also been arguing that Trump and his council were shut out of the process, all of which is untrue. Trumps lawyers made those same false claims, and more, stating that republicans weren't even allowed in the hearings and they told these lies to the american people in front of the chief justice even though everyone in that room knew it to be a lie. What went on in the House isn't what is going on in the Senate.
                          Last edited by JimL; 01-22-2020, 11:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            You said that republicans couldn't call witnesses, that they couldn't cross examine witnesses, and others, perhaps you yourself, I don't know, have also been arguing that Trump and his council were shut out of the process, all of which is untrue. Trumps lawyers made those same false claims to the american people in front of the chief justice even though everyone in that room knew it to be a lie. What went on in the House isn't what is going on in the Senate.
                            Again, I and millions of people actually WATCHED the House proceedings and don't just rely on liberal talking points like you do. You have been gas-lighted JimL.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Yes, and I watched the entire opening arguments yesterday as well when the presidents council continued that blatant lie about the House proceedings in front of the chief Justice. If you honestly believe that the republicans were shut out from the House proceedings, that they couldn't call and question witnesses, that Trump and his lawyers were shut out from the process, then you are just wrong and have fallen for the lies that claimed they were.
                              I saw large portions of the House proceedings but I didn’t see anything that could reasonably be construed as ‘unfair’. Republicans keep talking about how unfair it was but the only claim that seems to be true is that the vote to begin proceedings was entirely partisan.

                              Somehow that means the senate can’t have a fair trial.

                              The criticism of the House proceedings has been largely inconsistent and most of it seems to be criticism just for the sake of criticising. From the very first day they were criticised for not meeting the criminal standard for proving guilt while dismissing any evidence presented as ‘inadmissible’ in a court of law. That criticism was unfair, especially during the investigation stage.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Again, I and millions of people actually WATCHED the House proceedings and don't just rely on liberal talking points like you do. You have been gas-lighted JimL.
                                And the great majority that watched disagree with you and want to see witnesses and documentary evidence in the trial. A grand Jury, which is what a House impeachment actually is doesn't need to prove guilt, doesn't need all the evidence, they merely have to decide if there is enough evidence to indict, or take it to trial. To deny any new evidence without cause at trial is obstruction of Justice. I would ask why it is that you people don't want to see it? But we already know the answer to that, don't we?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:28 PM
                                11 responses
                                52 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:00 PM
                                1 response
                                29 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 04:08 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:47 AM
                                36 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2021, 04:54 PM
                                17 responses
                                139 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X