Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[Paratus]

I in no way deny he and the other Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they need to to not boot Trump. However, McConnell NEVER said the things people in this thread say he said. Period. He didnt.

How about we wait and see when (if) the House ever gets it to the Senate and see what happens?

"There will be no difference between the President's position and our position in how to handle this," McConnell told Hannity.

You view that as an unbiased position in line with the oath he’ll take.

Most others do.not.

 

[BUTCH1]

And?

figure it out chief.

 

[blackangst1]

You view that as an unbiased position in line with the oath he’ll take.

Most others do.not.

Uh, I admitted its biased. What do you think when I said "I in no way deny he and the other Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they need to to not boot Trump "?

Comprehension, sir.

 

[blackangst1]

figure it out chief.

Conversation isnt your strong suit, is it.

 

[BUTCH1]

Conversation isnt your strong suit, is it.

It is with anyone with an IQ above a garden-slug.

 

[fskimospy]

OK man you are seriously dazed here. Let me put the whole convo in order for you:


Protip: The Senate is where the trial is. And it hasnt started.

Then you jumped in the middle fucking things up by saying:

Which has NOTHING to do with my post. Maybe to avoid confusion you should quote the appropriate post? Or was it you that was confused?

To which I replied:

Which it HAS NOT.

And then you completely took it off course. Maybe either get some sleep, put the booze down, or reply to the correct post next time.

And then, you fucked things up even further by saying:


THE TRIAL HASNT STARTED!

Im still waiting for links that show:

lol, one of us needs to put the booze down.

Even if I take you 100% at your word that your only goal in quoting that article was to show that no trial had started in the Senate quoting an article from two weeks ago wrongly speculating that impeachment either wouldn’t happen at all or would happen in January would do nothing to establish that. Absolutely nothing!

So no, even if I give you every benefit of the doubt you fucked it up. Stop digging.

McConnel has said he cant be an impartial witness. NOT that he ihas no intention of running a fair trial.

Jesus Chris you always attack Trump for what he says (rightfully so many times) but God help this fucking board when people take liberties.

You’ve already been shown multiple times that what you’re saying here is false. McConnell said nothing about being a witness (why would he be a witness?) he was talking about being a juror.

He was absolutely clear that he plans to violate his oath and not be an impartial juror. Therefore the trial will be unfair. You got exactly what you asked for so just admit it and stop digging. Why is it so hard to admit it when you’re wrong?

 

[fskimospy]

BTW...link where McConnell is quoted as saying he will violate the oath? And how can he be in violation when he hasnt even taken the oath yet? Christ on a camel youre reaching here.

You’ve already been provided with links where he states he will violate his oath.

How many more times does something this basic need to be shown to you?

 

[mikeymikec]

Trump impeachment: President pens angry letter to Pelosi on eve of vote

In an extraordinary intervention, the president sends a six-page letter denouncing the process.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'm reminded of when Saddam Hussein kept ranting in court how they had no right to judge him and the process was all a sham.

 

[ivwshane]

Don’t feed the troll.

 

[TheVrolok]

Don’t feed the troll.

This is the crux of the problem. Unlike some of our other posters, I don't think he's actually a troll. I think that he actually believes what he's saying. He thinks his logic is.. logical? He's been proven wrong here numerous times, but he continues to double down. Folks like this are not "teachable" and they make up a non insignificant part society. Now we have a system that is rigged to function under minority rule and, well, here we are with "alternate facts." This "culture" is not going away. Trump didn't bring out anything new, he just enabled us to talk more openly about what we already are. Unfortunately, what he has done, is proven that our system of checks and balances doesn't have the resilience actually required to combat fascism.

 

[interchange]

Jesus Chris you always attack Trump for what he says (rightfully so many times) but God help this fucking board when people take liberties.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Bitek]

https://imgur.com/7uv31IJ

Ho ho ho!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The chief justice presides because the vice president is the beneficiary, so to speak, of the removal of a president. Otherwise, the VP presides over an impeachment trial. I don't think Roberts would have any powers other than those the Senate affords him. They make the rules for an impeachment trial and his job would be to ensure they are followed. If Mitch wants a sham, I don't think there is any way of stopping it.

I suggest reading this. Roberts powers as presiding justice.

The rules give considerable responsibility in determining things like evidence. After today the Senate is stuck with the rules it has.

In the current form the rules allow him to rule on important matters. He can be challenged but not silenced nor rendered inert.

 

[zinfamous]

Got a source for that?

You mean like Mitch McConnel's very own own turtle lips explicitly telling this to the public?

seriously, do you pay attention to anything?

 

[interchange]

I suggest reading this. Roberts powers as presiding justice.

The rules give considerable responsibility in determining things like evidence. After today the Senate is stuck with the rules it has.

In the current form the rules allow him to rule on important matters. He can be challenged but not silenced nor rendered inert.

The article does add some context, but the basic principle that I was referring to is that the Senate sets the rules of the trial, as they did with Clinton. What's on the books from Johnson isn't relevant if they change the rules. Roberts only has the powers they vest in him.

What I did learn, unless the article is mistaken, is the urgency they must act with to do so.

 

[zinfamous]

That's VERY different than what you said. And you know the evidence in an impeachment doesn't taste to the level of criminal court.

Now where's that quote?

So, McConnell very clearly proclaiming that he has no intention of running a fair trial, by any defined democratic standard as established by this nation in our constitution, is VERY different from someone telling you that Mitch McConnel has no intention of running a fair trial?




seriously though....What happened to you?

 

[brycejones]

seriously, do you pay attention to anything?

He does:

FoxNews, Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, Dailywire, Fucker Carlson, etc


Unfortunately they have all systematically broken his ability to think at all.

 

[zinfamous]

You ask for proof of McConnell's bullshit when a Google search provides the answer 1st 3 hits, you're not paying the least bit of attention.

But it's "VERY DIFFERENT" from what was said.

He won't tell us why. He'll just proclaim it's "VERY DIFFERENT," leave it at that, and assume the rest of us are just as stupid.

This is what the GOP and Fox News does to human brains. It makes them very, very, very stupid.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But it's "VERY DIFFERENT" from what was said.

He won't tell us why. He'll just proclaim it's "VERY DIFFERENT," leave it at that, and assume the rest of us are just as stupid.

This is what the GOP and Fox News does to human brains. It makes them very, very, very stupid.

No, don't you understand. He means that the words are very different. There were a lot more letters in the words he said. They are pronounced differently. That was all he was trying to tell us, that McConnell used different words to get that message across. He was right all along!

 

[trenchfoot]

So I guess that spiteful letter written by one of Trump's lackeys makes Trump feel so much better about himself, as if

But it's "VERY DIFFERENT" from what was said.

He won't tell us why. He'll just proclaim it's "VERY DIFFERENT," leave it at that, and assume the rest of us are just as stupid.

This is what the GOP and Fox News does to human brains. It makes them very, very, very stupid.

Like pickling sardines. The sardines gets packed tight in a jar and soaked in a strong brew that alters its texture, taste and aroma into the liking of the brewer of whom likes his sardines very dead, uniformly rank, bitterly sour to the palate and curiously distasteful in a particularly morbid anti-social kind of way.

 

[zinfamous]

No, don't you understand. He means that the words are very different. There were a lot more letters in the words he said. They are pronounced differently. That was all he was trying to tell us, that McConnell used different words to get that message across. He was right all along!

From what I gather, the conservative brain has been trapped in absolutes. "Mitch didn't directly say that we are running an unfair, kangaroo court--therefore he isn't--take that, libtards!" I believe this is pretty much all they are arguing. Further, whenever the Dems run a democratic trial, focused only on evidence and investigation, it is defined by these same dumb-brained conservatives as a kangaroo court, with literally zero appreciation as to what that actually means. They said it, therefore it's true.

--what we say is always true.
--because we think this way, and we don't care, we assume everyone else must think this way, therefore they are wrong whenever they say something because we know that is what we are doing, which they must be doing, therefore there is no hypocrisy when we proudly lie and call out everyone else as liars, never giving a shit if they are lying are not.

That is the essence of the modern conservative brain, invented by Roger Ailes, and not one of them gives a flying fuck how retarded they sound in public.

 

[interchange]

There is certainly words indicating an intent to hold a trial with all of the very faults Republican reps are currently ascribing to the current impeachment process. In the wake of all this, I would want a constitutional amendment formalizing rules for impeachment inquiries and trials with SCOTUS getting roped in automatically at every step.

 

[blackangst1]

You guys are funny...I watch Fox news~maybe~30 minutes a week

lulz

 

[fskimospy]

There is certainly words indicating an intent to hold a trial with all of the very faults Republican reps are currently ascribing to the current impeachment process. In the wake of all this, I would want a constitutional amendment formalizing rules for impeachment inquiries and trials with SCOTUS getting roped in automatically at every step.

What rules would you want to change?

The problem isn't that we lack rules for how this is to be conducted, it's that McConnell and others have decided the rules no longer matter and they're going to conduct a biased and unfair proceeding. I mean they are so unafraid of the consequences that they are just publicly stating they will violate their oaths.

I don't see any realistic way that SCOTUS could change that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ok. Towing the party line I see.

/roll eyes

I'm guessing that when Trump said "I did nothing wrong" you believed him. When he said "Read the transcript" you did, and you still believed him. The power of suggestion overcame your intellect. Trump is realy good at doing that to people.