Dems can't give it up: Surprise vote to call witnesses

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  138 comments


Dems can't give it up: Surprise vote to call witnesses
Kangaroo court anyone? No end in sight. This could drag on indefinitely. Meanwhile, no cabinet noms are getting done, no Covid relief etc. Biden folks can’t be happy...Senator John Cornyn

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

House managers must be feeling the heat from the hard left, which firmly controls the democratic party and the Biden administration.

The reason for this Hail Mary?

Answer: Progressive anger 

Was that video montage of prominent Democrats' shockingly violent rhetoric for much of the last four years so devastating? 


If democrats want to call witnesses, which they should have locked testimony in during the House impeachment, Republicans must also be able call lots & lots of witnesses. We are making history though. Nobody has seen anything like this unfold in US history. As of last week the stock market was doing well under the assumption that this whole farce would play out in one week. As for Joe Biden, he will have to wait for his covid-relief package or any legislation as well as appointments. Merrick Garland will again have to cool his heels.

Many thought todays Saturday session would be the day the Senate voted on whether to convict.

However, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment manager, said he wants to subpoena Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R., Wash.) after she said in a statement Friday night that House minority leader Kevin McCarthy told her that Trump had sided with the mob during a phone call the two had while the January 6 attack on the Capitol was underway. Thus a juror could become a witness too!


Democrats always overreach

The vote to allow witnesses was 55-45 and the door is now open for a long, long process.

(Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses)


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Are we changing the charges now as well?

The farce resumes at 12:30

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I already have a seed on this topic. I guess you think the "truth" will emerge on your effort. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
I already have a seed on this topic.

That's fine John, mine is an opinion piece as is yours. We can have an infinite number of them. NT is one of the few places that people like me can speak their minds.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 weeks ago

I do not object to other seeds on one particular topic, however you know you could give your opinion on the other seed as well as on any other seed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

You mean on your seed?

I looked at it. You have three sentences framed like a news bulletin.

I think I've identified the spark behind this move.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

You're right, I don't put right wing propaganda in the body of my articles. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

No slant John. Look at my Post # 5.

Do you disagree with that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

"You're right, I don't put right wing propaganda in the body of my articles."

I got a ticket for telling the truth like that

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
4  JBB    2 weeks ago

It ain't over till it's over. You'll know it is over when...

256

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4    2 weeks ago

I'm sure Joe Biden isn't too happy to hear that.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
4.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 weeks ago

I do not think Joe minds waiting for additional testimony which is extremely damning to Trump!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Joe cares more about tarring Trump that getting his covid relief out before benefits expire?

That's shocking.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

There is no evidence to that. In fact, Biden has been very disinterested in the trial and has expressed that he was concerned that it is affecting him getting on with business. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence to that.

Yes, I know Perrie. JBB is telling me that Joe is happy the trial is being extended.  I'm sure Biden isn't happy about having covid-relief pushed to the back-burner.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
4.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

No, you just do not want to hear the sworn testimony of the witnesses of Trump's behavior between one and four P.M. on January the sixth. Lying before a Senate impeachment trial is serious business. 

"What did Trump know, when did he know and what specifically did he do and say about?

We are waiting for answers. All of us are.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
No

What do you mean No?

You've repeatedly said Biden is happy with the trial extension. Read the article Perrie posted.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Senior Participates
4.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

Just because they are sworn doesn't mean these cherry picked "witnesses" either know or will tell the truth. Trying to interpret someones state of mind or motives is not legally admissible

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

According to Herrera Beutler, a WA Republican, claims that McCarthy told her that when he spoke to Trump that day and asked him to “publicly and forcefully” call off the Capitol assault, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy supposedly refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters, which is when President Trump supposedly said ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.'

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
5.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    2 weeks ago

It is damning testimony for Trump. Joe is HAPPY!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1    2 weeks ago
Joe is HAPPY!

Lol, I don't think so. He may be cognitively challenged, but he's not totally retarded. His relief bill and his appointments are going to be delayed.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
5.1.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

So, suddenly you are worried that Joe Biden's agenda is being delayed? I am not buying it...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

You prefer to waltz. Ok.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
5.1.4  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

What did Trump know and when did he know?

Please be specific!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
What did Trump know and when did he know?

I'm not a mind reader.

The Article charges inciting insurrection.  I know that's a loser.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
5.1.6  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

Witnesses verify Trump lead the insurgency!

They will show Trump was derelict of duty...

They will prove he organized, inciting and cheered on the insurgency and did nothing to stop it in process. Pence saved the day...

We were all thiscloseto losing our democracy.

What did Trump know and when did he know?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
Witnesses verify Trump lead the insurgency!

Where is their testimony?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

This is the move of a team that's losing and has to start the game over.   The Trump lawyers really housed the Democrats this week, and I guarantee in 20 years when the real story of what happened this week starts to get told,  the Democratic Senators were pissed at what a half assed job the impeachment managers did and some grown up in the party told them to do what they should have been doing since day 1, developing fact witnesses about Trump's behavior. 

Instead, of focusing on Trump's behavior, they bizarrely focused on sure loser of an incitement argument  and "proving" how terrible the riots were. OF course, proving the riot was terrible only proves the riot was terrible, it doesn't make Trump responsible for it. All they did was gin up emotion, which was effectively neutered by Trump's lawyer's meandering opening argument. That was a brilliant tactic, even if Trump himself apparently didn't get what he was doing. With one speech, t"WTF is Trump's lawyer doing" became the dominate takeaway from the opening.  Incredibly effective lawyering by that guy.

The the destruction of the "incitement" claim was like watching Tyson fight a tomato can in his prime.  They could have quit after 10 minutes with that video of every Democratic leader and their brother using the same language that Trump supposedly used to incite the crowd.  They did an amazing job (with lots of help from the House impeachment managers) of fighting the battle on the grounds most favorable to Trump.  

The Democrats are lucky this isn't a real trial and their majority allows them a do-over. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago
The the destruction of the "incitement" claim was like watching Tyson fight a tomato can in his prime.  They could have quit after 10 minutes with that video of every Democratic leader and their brother using the same language that Trump supposedly used to incite the crowd.  They did an amazing job (with lots of help from the House impeachment managers) of fighting the battle on the grounds most favorable to Trump.  

I want to apologize to the Trump lawyers. They did close it out well.


The Democrats are lucky this isn't a real trial and their majority allows them a do-over. 

There is nothing like being in control is there?  Having the power to say we play another inning must be a great rush!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
7  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

And now they backed down. No witnesses. 

what a cluster fuck by the Democrats.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    2 weeks ago

Bring her out, let her speak, let us hear her!

Just when we were preparing to depose Pelosi and Harris!

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
7.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    2 weeks ago
"Just when we were preparing to depose Pelosi and Harris!"
Now that's something I would have liked to see and hear from Donald's ambulance chasers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
7.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
Senate will not call impeachment witnesses after both sides strike deal to put Herrera Beutler statement on record http:// hill.cm/WkOwq0H


EuID0PEXAAosBig?format=png&name=small
The trial judge & juror committed to voting "guilty"
 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
7.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

I know that, what's your point? BTW, do you actually believe that Donnie's lawyers, Twit Twit & Sons, had any actual witnesses?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
7.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @7.1.3    2 weeks ago
I know that, what's your point?

That Republicans called their bluff. If dems wanted a witness, Republicans would call many.


BTW, do you actually believe that Donnie's lawyers, Twit Twit & Sons, had any actual witnesses?

No, why would they?  The dems had none.

Raskin wanted another bite of the apple. It's too little, too late.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
7.1.5  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    2 weeks ago

Pelosi and what she knew ahead of time would have been disaster for democrats.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
7.1.6  dennis smith  replied to  MAGA @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

Bottom line is the Dem managers were not prepared. Snap impeachment lays at Pelosi's feet, she hobbled any chance of success by doing that.

Good bye Nancy 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
7.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  dennis smith @7.1.6    2 weeks ago

I doubt Nancy is going anywhere. Two botched BS politically motivated impeachments will not be enough to remove her or her hench-people.

 She can point to Trump's and the Republican's low ratings and say that she "accomplished everything she wanted".

Of course dragging the Dems ratings down as well in the process won't even cross her mind. Until mid terms that is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Dereliction of duty is not the charge in the Article!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Raskin read Beutler's hearsay statement into the record.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    2 weeks ago

It's not hearsay Vic.   If in my murder trial , a witness says that I told her I did the crime , it would not be disallowed.  This type of evidence is allowed all the time.  Beutler is not claiming first hand knowledge of what trump  told McCarthy, she is testifying to what McCarthy told her. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
she is testifying to what McCarthy told her. 

That is by definition hearsay evidence. You would need to have McCarthy testify under oath to have direct evidence.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Senior Participates
10.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Many on the left appear to eschew both truth and credible evidence...

not to mention due process and the presumption of innocence..

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

Greg, they seem to think all they need do is write up articles of impeachment and impeach. Reason is always left behind.

History will record that these were faux political impeachments.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
10.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
If in my murder trial , a witness says that I told her I did the crime , it would not be disallowed.

You're talking about a relevant, directly on point statement against self-interest (literally, an unprompted confession) and it would still need to be supported by corroborating evidence.

But here, we're just talking about incitement to insurrection (the incident charge) and not some vague accusation of him being a bad president. The statement isn't even relevant to the charge. Also, being hearsay within hearsay, it's unreliable. It's also clearly prejudicial. So much wrong this.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
10.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

Recent history has already recorded the fake impeachments

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.5    2 weeks ago

With a big bold asterisk.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
10.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    2 weeks ago

It's like a Russian nesting doll of hearsay. We've got an out of court statement from Buetler, that we can't cross examine on. That statement is about what McCarthy told her, and we can't cross examine him. His statement is about what Trump said and we can't question him either.

And none of it - even if taken as 100% true - sounds like it's relevant to a charge of incitement to insurrection. The fact that everyone's response is now outrage about some dereliction of duty goes to how prejudicial and distracting such evidence is, making it inadmissible. I can't imagine a courtroom in this country where this would be admissible as evidence.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @10.2    2 weeks ago

I think you nailed it.

From their point of view, the more they try and tar Trump the more that might stick should he ever run again. None of this makes sense otherwise.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
11  JBB    2 weeks ago

If witnesses prove Trump knew about plans for the insurgency days prior then that is a new ballgame!

I expect ninety, or more, Senators vote to convict...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
11.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @11    2 weeks ago
If witnesses prove Trump knew about plans for the insurgency days prior then that is a new ballgame!

What witnesses?

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
11.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1    2 weeks ago

I would like to hear from Melania, Mick Mulvaney, Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka any other witnesses to Trump words and behavior leading up to and during the insurgency. What did Trump know and when?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
11.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

You can dream about that.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
11.2  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @11    2 weeks ago
If witnesses prove Trump knew about plans for the insurgency days prior then that is a new ballgame!

Then you should be very upset with the Democrats in the Senate who agreed to not call witnesses. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
11.3  dennis smith  replied to  JBB @11    2 weeks ago

The dems caved on calling witnesses. Why do you think that is?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
11.3.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  dennis smith @11.3    2 weeks ago
The dems caved on calling witnesses. Why do you think that is?

I'd say it has something to do with the fact that trumps lawyers were saying they had hundreds of witnesses they want to call. 

In effect, drawing the preceding out indefinitely. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
12  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Van der Veen was much more effective in closing. No doubt about it!

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    2 weeks ago

Lies and smears are effective in this country.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
12.1.1  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @12.1    2 weeks ago

Lies and smears were what the house impeachment managers were pedaling.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @12.1.1    2 weeks ago

Thank you for proving my point...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
12.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.2    2 weeks ago

You proved your own point by believing the Dems full blown BS.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @12.1.3    2 weeks ago

57 - 43

That's a majority, lol

butt the game is rigged to never be won.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.4    2 weeks ago
57 - 43

That's a majority, lol

butt the game is rigged to never be won.

Should we just do away with that part of the Constitution?

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
12.1.6  dennis smith  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.4    2 weeks ago

That majority thing is what Hillary whined about also.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
13  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

The political left has hit a big beautiful wall of resistance.  And it's not the anonymous passive-aggressive resistance of which the political left is so fond.

American democracy is much stronger than the political left have deluded themselves into believing.  It seems the United States is not going to be subjugated without a fight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
14  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

And now the vote!

For the first time they show portraits along with the votes!

Lol...democrats!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Acquitted again and once again vindicated!

OIP.eF2hWAaEk3E6-dM466LiUwHaFw?w=215&h=180&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    2 weeks ago

Vindicated is used when absolved does not apply. 

Trump got off but the Republican scum that let this traitor go will face the judgement of history. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    2 weeks ago

Scum?  How about every one of those 50 democrat Senators who marched to Schumer's orders?

I only wish Schumer had tried to use the Reconstruction provisions of the 14th Amendment. Then he could have been acquitted three times!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
15.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

Patriots all.  Each and every one of them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

I consider the opinions of blind Trump supporters to be totally worthless on this subject. 

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.1.4  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @15.1.2    2 weeks ago

And 🦅Trump🦅 is the greatest 🗽 Patriot 🇺🇸

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.1.5  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.3    2 weeks ago

And we really don’t care right now!  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
15.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

I only wish Schumer had tried to use the Reconstruction provisions of the 14th Amendment. Then he could have been acquitted three times!

They still can, and they only need 51 of the 57 votes they had today. If they do that, lil donny will never hold public office again....thank God. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.3    2 weeks ago

To make such a statement proves otherwise.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Guide
15.1.8  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    2 weeks ago
Vindicated is used when absolved does not apply. 

Really?

Synonyms & Antonyms of   vindicate

1 to free from a charge of wrongdoing
  • vowed that the evidence would completely   vindicate   him

Synonyms for  vindicate

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
15.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @15.1.6    2 weeks ago

I find it amusing to see how far Democrats will go to ban a man they just beat at the polls.

Seems like they are scared of him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
15.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    2 weeks ago

Yup, they're all complicit.  Everyone who voted to acquit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
15.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @15.1.10    2 weeks ago
Yup, they're all complicit.  Everyone who voted to acquit.

Gee, maybe Pelosi will try to impeach those Senators next?

Her record on removal through impeachment is a perfect 0-2!

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.1.12  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @15.1.2    2 weeks ago

Not even one...  all human debris pond scum.  All 50 of them 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
15.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.3    2 weeks ago

Just as I consider the opinions of blind Trump haters to be totally worthless on this subject.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
15.1.14  dennis smith  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

The whining will continue from the Democrats and their supporters in spite of the constitution 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @15.1.14    2 weeks ago

They are tenacious.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
15.2  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    2 weeks ago

Vindicated?  Not for a second.  The majority of the votes found him guilty.

Trump will be forever deemed guilty in the eyes of history.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @15.2    2 weeks ago

Trump just made a statement - something about the final chapter of a 4 year witch hunt.

That sounds like it could be the title of an article.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

I will quote the Bible 

Forgive them (Trump supporters)  father , for they know not what they do. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
15.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

Trump = something vomited up by the Republican Party.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
15.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

McConnell is delivering a scathing denunciation of Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @15.2.5    2 weeks ago

Yup - Post 16

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

Mitch McConnell just said that Trump is "practically and morally" responsible for the riot. He says Trump "provoked" the mob. What is that if not the equivalent to "incited" ?

He is doing everything to Trump but vote against him. They are gutless wonders. 

Read McConnell's speech later. He is laying all the responsibility on Trump. You'd think he was the prosecutor.  

But in the end he has no guts. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
15.2.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @15.2.7    2 weeks ago
He is doing everything to Trump but vote against him.

McConnell's view is that Trump was partly responsible and should have done more to stop it, but McConnell wasn't going to vote to impeach a private citizen. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
15.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @15.2.3    2 weeks ago

"Trump = something vomited up by the Republican Party."

tRump = something shit out by Satan

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Guide
15.2.10  Jasper2529  replied to  Gsquared @15.2    2 weeks ago
 The majority of the votes found him guilty.

According to the US Constitution, that's not how impeachment voting works in the US Senate. It needs a 2/3 majority, currently 67 votes. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
15.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @15.2.10    2 weeks ago

Thesaurus

majority

noun

Synonyms & Antonyms of majority

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 the largest part or quantity of something
  • a vast majority of the town's residents support the proposed tax reduction

Synonyms for majority

Words Related to majority

Near Antonyms for majority

Antonyms for majority

57 - 43 will always be the majority, regardless of the rules which have prevented all Presidents, senators and Cabinet members from being impeached regardless of guilt, even when they admitted guilt.

It's just another exercise of an ancient tradition from when Parliamentarians had honor which no longer works.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
15.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @15.2.11    2 weeks ago
57 - 43 will always be the majority, regardless of the rules which have prevented all Presidents, senators and Cabinet members from being impeached regardless of guilt, even when they admitted guilt.

It has never prevented anyone at any time from being impeached.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Guide
15.2.13  Jasper2529  replied to  Split Personality @15.2.11    2 weeks ago
57 - 43 will always be the majority

Come on, SP. You know better, and I know that you know.

In other instances, you are correct. However, you are NOT correct according to the US Constitution as it applies to impeachment.

We have 100 Senators. Two thirds of 100 = 66.66. Mathematics rules make us round UP when the tenths digit is >5, so that makes it a super-majority and the number needs to be 67. 

Thanks for the general definitions of majority even though they're irrelevant to the US Constitution regarding Senate impeachment.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
15.2.14  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.12    2 weeks ago

Got me.

57 - 43 will always be the majority, regardless of the rules which have prevented all Presidents, senators and Cabinet members from being impeached & convicted, regardless of guilt, even when they admitted guilt.

It's just another exercise of an ancient tradition from when Parliamentarians had honor which no longer works.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
15.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @15.2.14    2 weeks ago

That sounds like sour grapes from someone who didn't like the outcome of the impeachment trials.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
15.2.16  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @15.2.13    2 weeks ago

Thanks for your years of continuous insistence on always being correct about grammar, spelling and definitions,

but the original statement "The majority of the votes found him guilty." was absolutely correct

and did not mention the Senate rules I am sure everyone here is aware of.

Would you like the last word also?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
15.2.17  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.15    2 weeks ago
That sounds like sour grapes from someone who didn't like the outcome of the impeachment trials.

Funny thing is that I predicted it weeks ago.  The system is rigged  and has been since we borrowed it from the English

who since the late 1700's have had similar results, all ending in acquittal, generally decided along ideological lines.

One case lasted 7 years...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
15.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @15.2.17    2 weeks ago
Funny thing is that I predicted it weeks ago. 

Just like almost everyone else.

Easy to do once you realize impeachment is a strictly political process.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.2.19  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.15    2 weeks ago

It’s only “honor” when the secular progressive elites get their way in a situation.  Any other outcome is by default less than honorable because they said so.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.2.20  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @15.2.11    2 weeks ago

That’s the argument that wil be used to try to do away with the filibuster because according to the left everything in that body must be 51-50. The requirements for 67 or 60 no longer apply when they are in the majority.  Then the old constitution which protected them when they are in the minority no longer apply...

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.2.21  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

It is on several sites.  Since Trump was acquitted it’s time Twitter and Facebook each restored his account...

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
15.2.22  dennis smith  replied to  Gsquared @15.2    2 weeks ago

The majority of voters voted for Hillary and she lost due to the constitution.

The majority of voters voted to find Trump guilty and they lost due to the constitution.

Dems should read the constitution before acting. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
15.2.23  dennis smith  replied to  Gsquared @15.2.3    2 weeks ago

more whining

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
15.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    2 weeks ago

The man depicted in the photo in Comment 15 = the face of evil.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
15.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @15.3    2 weeks ago
"The man depicted in the photo in Comment 15 = the face of evil."

Is Satan's asshole

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.3.2  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @15.3    2 weeks ago

No.  We’d have a picture of Biden there if that was what we were portraying. That is what he is the face of to America now. 

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
15.4  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif 🇺🇸🗽🦅jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
15.5  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    2 weeks ago

Just like Bill Clinton! 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
15.5.1  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @15.5    2 weeks ago

Funny, I don't ever hear the left or Democrats blast Bill Clinton; of course he was guilty as sin- but in the Democrats' opinion "It didn't rise to an impeachable offense".

Perjury and read obstruction not being impeachable offenses?

The Democrats didn't even come close either time of putting a real case together. The Republicans absolute evidence against Clinton; but the Democrats put party before country.

But Trrruuummmmppppp!!!!! Is not grounds for impeachment; which the Democrats were calling for before he was even sworn in.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Now we hear from Mitch McConnell who blames Trump for losing the GA Senate races. This may be the first stage in separating the party from Trump.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
16.1  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @16    2 weeks ago

McConnell's speech sounds like he is delivering a closing argument for the prosecution.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
16.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Gsquared @16.1    2 weeks ago

Same  circular argument in the end.

The House acted in time but did not deliver the Articles of Impeachment in time

( Because Mitch told them not to bother on January 13th until after Inauguration  )

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
16.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Split Personality @16.1.1    2 weeks ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @16.1    2 weeks ago

Yes Sir

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @16    2 weeks ago

Vic , no one wants to hear you try and split the baby in some way. You have bowed to Trump from day one. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2    2 weeks ago

John, let's get one thing straight, I've always said that Donald Trump did exactly what America needed in his 4 years as President. I'm proud to say I voted for him twice. McConnell is concerned about the GOP winning elections in the future. I'm all for that, however we get there.

The enemy of America is still, first last and always, that evil ideology which is now flexing it's muscles and taking away rights and punishing it's opponents.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.1    2 weeks ago

I doubt if Trump could spell ideology, let alone define one. 

I wouldnt support Charles Manson for president just because he supported liberal policies or liberal ideology.  We have to have people of the best possible character running our governments. Of course few people in this world are perfect and we have many politicians with character flaws.  Trump is a whole other level. The fact is it was known, BEFORE he was elected in 2016 that Trump was a serial liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat.  Yet people voted for him anyway. The sad truth is that this is a condemnation of the attitudes of about a third of the American people, and they havent changed in the ensuing 4 years. If anything that third has gotten worse. 

And no, Hillary Clinton was not a worse choice. That is a lie, the product of 25 years of a right wing media demonization drumbeat into the ears of gullible "conservatives". 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.1    2 weeks ago
taking away rights and punishing it's opponents.

what rights have been taken away from you Vic? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

Shame!

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
16.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.4    2 weeks ago

What rights are those Vic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.5    2 weeks ago
What rights are those Vic?

You have a job, right?   Can you say what you want where you work?   Could I, if I worked there?

It doesn't take much thought to figure it out.  You know it, I know it and JR knows it. Let's not pretend.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
16.2.7  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.2    2 weeks ago

The constitution is a wonderful document and it is the basis for all President's elections and impeachments trial results. 

All the whining from the left will not change that. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
16.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.6    2 weeks ago

No one is pretending except you.

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
16.3  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @16    2 weeks ago

McConnell holding up stimulus money hurt in Georgia more than Trump 

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
16.3.1  MAGA  replied to  charger 383 @16.3    2 weeks ago

By far!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
16.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @16.3    2 weeks ago

It was Pelosi and she admitted it. She wasn't going to do anything to help Americans while Trump was President.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
16.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.3.2    2 weeks ago

Nope, the former occupant of the White House said he wouldn't allow stimulus checks UNTIL AFTER HE WAS RE-ELECTED.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
16.4  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @16    2 weeks ago

I don’t think that will happen. If anything it will separate Mc Connell from the party. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
17  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

McConnell is suggesting that Trump should be subjected to criminal and civil prosecution.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
17.1  Snuffy  replied to  Gsquared @17    2 weeks ago
McConnell is suggesting that Trump should be subjected to criminal and civil prosecution.

They could, but my understanding of Brandenburg v Ohio would make a criminal case much harder than the Impeachment was. For a criminal case, prosecution would have to prove intent, ie would have to prove that Trump intended for the attack on the capital to occur. That is a very high bar so IMO I doubt if any additional charges come relating to this attack.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Expert
17.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Snuffy @17.1    2 weeks ago

They would have to prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt", his guilt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
17.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @17.1.1    2 weeks ago

It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  The former occupant of the White House and his mob have provided all the necessary evidence.  Those who voted to acquit are complicit, plain and simple.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
17.2  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @17    2 weeks ago

They would have to prove that Trump was part of the planning of the attack that occurred days and even weeks in advance of the protest. (Since the FBI knew it was being planned; but botched delivering the information to those that needed it.)

Good luck with that. The secret service monitor the President at all times; including all communications. If the evidence was there they would have found a way to get it to the Democrats. They hate Trump even more than the Democrats do. Intelligence leaks abounded throughout the Trump administration; but on this nada.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
17.2.1  MAGA  replied to  Ronin2 @17.2    2 weeks ago

The bottom line here...

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
17.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @17.2    2 weeks ago

Delusional!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Thomas


38 visitors