Guy Chamberlin Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: The important facts of this 'case' are all already known. We know what $$ was supposed to go to the UKR, when it was delayed, when they got it, and what Trump said to them. The only interesting question was the legal definition of "other high crimes and misdemeanors" for which you need a college degree worth of background just to base a decent opinion. Technically, you just need a Twitter account and a sense of decency. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Technically, you just need a Twitter account and a sense of decency. Really, just decency would do... Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 33 minutes ago, funhusker said: Really, just decency would do... Well Joe said you'd need a background in order to form your opinion, and I think the President's 17,000 unfiltered tweets should be enough. If not, there's more. Link to comment
funhusker Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Well Joe said you'd need a background in order to form your opinion, and I think the President's 17,000 unfiltered tweets should be enough. If not, there's more. True. I just mentioned it because I don’t have Twitter, but I’ve listened to Trumps rambling. Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 It's funny that some would complain that it takes knowledge and education to understand the laws of our country, yet they're willing to elect a man to the highest office who has no working knowledge of those laws, and they will blindly defend him when he violates those laws. It's even more perplexing that they would choose to ignore the constitutional scholars who testified in the house to educate us on those laws. What an odd bunch of people. 2 1 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 8 hours ago, QMany said: After 200+ pages of the lies and deflection, @Notre Dame Joe now concedes the facts and wrongdoing but tries to argue its not impeachable. It was the inevitable, unethical Trump defense playbook. I'll concede it was sloppy. The transcript, more or less, speaks for itself. The Ds were sloppy too. Once the transcript of the phone call was released they had no case and should have let it stay on CNN scandal of the week. 8 hours ago, Nebfanatic said: In American justice new witnesses and evidence is brought into courtrooms on a daily basis by prosecutors or even by the defense. It is common practice to review new information and testimony as a trial is a search for the truth therefor if any new information can be made available to the court it will be made available Judges are sometimes lenient but the law says that evidence held back for surprise at trial will get excluded from the trial. 4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Well Joe said you'd need a background in order to form your opinion, and I think the President's 17,000 unfiltered tweets should be enough. If not, there's more. Good example. Some people say the President can be impeached for hate speech on twitter. If the House tries that you don't call witnesses from Twitter, but instead say "not other HCOMs" and acquit. 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 19 hours ago, teachercd said: Well...I guess I am your density... (Name that movie) And have a good night! Back To The Future. 1 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Judges are sometimes lenient but the law says that evidence held back for surprise at trial will get excluded from the trial. Only problem with this statement is Boltons testimony wasn't being held back for surprise. New witnesses come forward and are willing to testify after they maybe weren't willing to speak with police before all of the time. If a new fact witness becomes available they can and should testify Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: The transcript, more or less, speaks for itself. What transcript? 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 WHERE ARE THE EMAILS? 1 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 He did it, its impeachable, but maybe if we give him a second chance he won't do it again because he probably just didn't realize it was impeachable 1 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Trump did this immediately AFTER the Mueller Report, in which he barely (temporarily?) skated for his entanglements with foreign entities and American electioneering. Jesus, Lamar. 2 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 He also had the following rationale (paraphrased): "Yeah he did it and yeah it was wrong but it's an election year and Iowa votes tomorrow." Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 Lamar just cemented his legacy in a very poor way. Regardless of which side you are on, I don’t know how anyone could agree with his attempt at justification. 1 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 3 hours ago, Decoy73 said: Lamar just cemented his legacy in a very poor way. Regardless of which side you are on, I don’t know how anyone could agree with his attempt at justification. Doubt many of you were in New Hampshire in the 1990s by Lamar was the Bernie of his day. 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts