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

  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It was a witch hunt and has been since the morning after Trump was elected. You whiny turds know it, yet just like the witch hunters, you act like your innuendo are facts and you set your witch burning pyres ablaze based on nothing but false claims. Salem would be proud of you.
    There was and is no witch hunt, although it's no surprise to see another conservative resort to insults when they can't make their point. Deny, deny, deny - the first rule of public figures avoiding the consequences of their actions. And it's always amusing to see someone else try to tell me what I know.

    Trump is a crook; he deserves to be removed from the Presidency, and if Republicans had have put country ahead of party, he would have been.
    Last edited by Electric Skeptic; 09-17-2020, 10:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    The 'witch hunt' exists nowhere but in the minds of some conservatives. Trump is a crook and the worst president ever.
    It was a witch hunt and has been since the morning after Trump was elected. You whiny turds know it, yet just like the witch hunters, you act like your innuendo are facts and you set your witch burning pyres ablaze based on nothing but false claims. Salem would be proud of you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    You're just repeating the same witch hunt crap from Schiff and Pelosi. You'd have done great in Salem.
    The 'witch hunt' exists nowhere but in the minds of some conservatives. Trump is a crook and the worst president ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    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.
    You're just repeating the same witch hunt crap from Schiff and Pelosi. You'd have done great in Salem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Watermelon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-24-2020, 08:17 AM
3 responses
56 views
1 like
Last Post Starlight  
Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
29 responses
192 views
0 likes
Last Post Starlight  
Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
10 responses
103 views
0 likes
Last Post Juvenal
by Juvenal
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
6 responses
66 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
78 responses
593 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Working...
X