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

WHISLEBLOWER: Trump manipulating intelligance

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

  • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
    The law presumes nothing of the kind.
    In fact, it does. When a witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then anything he testifies to is presumed true unless his credibility is impeached by an opposing party.
    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


    • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
      Since I've offered none, irrelevant.
      Yes you have. The same one Schiff gave.


      Nope.
      Yep. Lack of a high crime or misdemeanor = no removal from office = right decision = butthurt libtards.


      He attempted to use his office to pressure a foreign power to attack an opponent.
      Biden had not entered the race when the first demand was made. He HAD been VP at the time of his son's potential treason.


      The childish responses have been all yours.
      Riiiighht...
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.
        The House of Representatives are not the jury, the Senate is. The House is merely the investigative branch.

        https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-court-trials
        Last edited by Bill the Cat; 09-16-2020, 08:26 AM.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
          No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.
          I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            In fact, it does. When a witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then anything he testifies to is presumed true unless his credibility is impeached by an opposing party.
            Again, completely false. It is entirely up to the jury to decide whether they think his testimony is truthful/accurate. The law doesn't even make a determination.
            America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yes you have. The same one Schiff gave.
              No, I have not.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yep. Lack of a high crime or misdemeanor = no removal from office = right decision = butthurt libtards.
              Presence of a high crime or misdemeanor = removal from office = cowardly Republicans = who cares about the country? I need to protect my party!

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Biden had not entered the race when the first demand was made. He HAD been VP at the time of his son's potential treason.
              Which is completely irrelevant. He was still a political opponent of Trump.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Riiiighht...
              Yup.
              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong.
                Wow, how can I even address such a brilliant argument?
                America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                  No, I have not.
                  Your next response says otherwise.

                  Presence of a high crime or misdemeanor = removal from office = cowardly Republicans = who cares about the country? I need to protect my party!
                  Well, there wasn't the "Presence of a high crime or misdemeanor", so the rest falls miserably around your head.

                  Which is completely irrelevant. He was still a political opponent of Trump.
                  No he wasn't at the time. He was a former VP whose son was being used by a foreign power to leverage the VP. That's treason.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                    Again, completely false. It is entirely up to the jury to decide whether they think his testimony is truthful/accurate. The law doesn't even make a determination.
                    The Impeachment process does not follow normal judicial process. Plus, the jury is the Senate, not the House.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
                      Again, completely false. It is entirely up to the jury to decide whether they think his testimony is truthful/accurate. The law doesn't even make a determination.
                      Read the Federal rules of evidence some time, dippy.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Your next response says otherwise.
                        No, it doesn't.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Well, there wasn't the "Presence of a high crime or misdemeanor", so the rest falls miserably around your head.
                        Actually there was the presence of a high crime or misdemeanor, so the rest is completely accurate.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        No he wasn't at the time. He was a former VP whose son was being used by a foreign power to leverage the VP. That's treason.
                        Yes, he was. He was a political opponent on whom Trump sought some dirt.
                        America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          No, it doesn't.
                          Yes it does.

                          Actually there was the presence of a high crime or misdemeanor, so the rest is completely accurate.
                          No there wasn't. Trump's demands of Zelinski were perfectly within his rights as POTUS, especially considering Burisma had almost direct access to the VP through his worthless son. That's potential treason.

                          Yes, he was. He was a political opponent on whom Trump sought some dirt.
                          He had not declared his candidacy yet, so no he was not a political opponent. He was a potential traitor. That's not "digging up dirt".
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            In fact, it does. When a witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then anything he testifies to is presumed true unless his credibility is impeached by an opposing party.
                            No thatís not how the law works. The judge canít direct the jury to take someoneís word as truth. Thereís a presumption of truth on uncontested points but the ultimate decider on what to believe is entirely on the fact finder, ie. the jury.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              No thatís not how the law works. The judge canít direct the jury to take someoneís word as truth. Thereís a presumption of truth on uncontested points but the ultimate decider on what to believe is entirely on the fact finder, ie. the jury.
                              And the jury AND judge in this case is the Senate, not the House.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Yes it does.

                                No there wasn't. Trump's demands of Zelinski were perfectly within his rights as POTUS, especially considering Burisma had almost direct access to the VP through his worthless son. That's potential treason.

                                He had not declared his candidacy yet, so no he was not a political opponent. He was a potential traitor. That's not "digging up dirt".
                                You're just repeating the same falsehoods. Trump tried to use his office for (more) personal gain; he deserved to be impeached and if the Republicans had have put country before party, they would have done it.
                                America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X