No witnesses. No legitimacy.

[DGUtley]

you are right. I cannot win the argument legally. But without the support of the people, you cannot win the argument morally. The will of the people is behind why we respect laws (in theory at least). Polls show the public wants witnesses. Truth seekers want witnesses. Do you want to hide behind technicalities like Congressional Republicans always have to do these days. You still haven't answered my question from an earlier post. Do you want the truth? Can you handle the truth?

I have paid zero attention to this up to this point. I am smart enough to know and experienced enough to know that the trial is not about seeking the truth. I hope that you are not naïve enough to believe this. A trial is a test of wills, a battle between sides, a theatrical play to some extent All to convince the decider of fact to rule in your favor.

You are hedging your bets here. The Democrats impeached him knowing that the Republicans in the Senate set the rules. Now, they want to Attack the legitimacy of the rules knowing full well that was the gambit going in. It really is disgusting. If you get your witnesses and lose, you will scream that the Republicans ignored the truth or were unfair or were biased or were crooked or were liars or whatever.

By the way, nobody cares about this. Only the leftists in the coffee shops care about this. Americans in the parts of the country that you guys have deemed immaterial think it is despicable. They will come out in droves to vote.

[stjames1_53]

I have paid zero attention to this up to this point. I am smart enough to know and experienced enough to know that the trial is not about seeking the truth. I hope that you are not naïve enough to believe this. A trial is a test of wills, a battle between sides, a theatrical play to some extent All to convince the decider of fact to rule in your favor.

You are hedging your bets here. The Democrats impeached him knowing that the Republicans in the Senate set the rules. Now, they want to Attack the legitimacy of the rules knowing full well that was the gambit going in. It really is disgusting. If you get your witnesses and lose, you will scream that the Republicans ignored the truth or were unfair or were biased or were crooked or were liars or whatever.

By the way, nobody cares about this. Only the leftists in the coffee shops care about this. Americans in the parts of the country that you guys have deemed immaterial think it is despicable. They will come out in droves to vote.

............ma voting finger is gettin' itchy

[Peter1469]

I am sorry to read that you view this as light matter.

Please tell me it's because you don't believe the President tried to stage an investigation into his political rival.

Unlike you, I do believe it. Democrats in Congress do. That's why the House impeached him.

The Bidens were engaging in corruption. Joe can't shield himself by running for office.

[Peter1469]

Originally Posted by TheLiquidGuy
Right on!!!!!!

Now explain to me why Trump defenders in washington do not also see that logic???


(i will be trying to sleep now. So i will give you some time to think that one over)




Wait. That's not what I asked.

I am asking you to consider why Republicans in Washington (in Congress) do not also want to call gulianni mulvaney pompeo pence?

You see the wisdom of calling exculpatory witnesses. They do not. Why?

My point being, they obviously do not think those witnesses will be exculpatory. Thats why.

I assume a republican will respond.

[Peter1469]

Well here is something I found in wikipedia. Someone out there agrees with me...

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_c...d_misdemeanors

I pointed out earlier that wiki gets impeachment wrong.

[TheLiquidGuy]

I have paid zero attention to this up to this point. I am smart enough to know and experienced enough to know that the trial is not about seeking the truth. I hope that you are not naïve enough to believe this. A trial is a test of wills, a battle between sides, a theatrical play to some extent All to convince the decider of fact to rule in your favor.

You are hedging your bets here. The Democrats impeached him knowing that the Republicans in the Senate set the rules. Now, they want to Attack the legitimacy of the rules knowing full well that was the gambit going in. It really is disgusting. If you get your witnesses and lose, you will scream that the Republicans ignored the truth or were unfair or were biased or were crooked or were liars or whatever.

By the way, nobody cares about this. Only the leftists in the coffee shops care about this. Americans in the parts of the country that you guys have deemed immaterial think it is despicable. They will come out in droves to vote.

I know. I know. I ask tough questions.

But you are not running for office. You don't have to dance around.

Do you care about the truth?

Yes or no?

If you are ashamed to answer that question in full view then feel free to PM me.

Does the truth matter to you?

[TheLiquidGuy]

I pointed out earlier that wiki gets impeachment wrong.

I thank you for your opinion on impeachment.

[TheLiquidGuy]

I pointed out earlier that wiki gets impeachment wrong.

Here is Alexander Hamilton's take. From The Federalist Papers #65

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.


Seems to me "abuse or violation of public trust" fits very well into the accusations under Article I. He also includes misconduct of a "POLITICAL" nature and things injurious to society. That's very broad.

And although its not relevant, the second half of that paragraph is surprisingly prophetic given it was written more than 200 years ago. Notice he speaks of "both" sides.

[Peter1469]

Here is Alexander Hamilton's take. From The Federalist Papers #65

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.


Seems to me "abuse or violation of public trust" fits very well into the accusations under Article I. He also includes misconduct of a "POLITICAL" nature and things injurious to society. That's very broad.

And although its not relevant, the second half of that paragraph is surprisingly prophetic given it was written more than 200 years ago. Notice he speaks of "both" sides.

No it does not.

The soft coup started the minute Trump won the election.

[stjames1_53]

No it does not.

The soft coup started the minute Trump won the election.

It actually started the second he decided to run. You know that Obama ordered the IRS to start the investigation...........down deep inside you know it's true.