SighMcConnell is publicly stating he will violate the oath he is required to take when the impeachment trial starts. That oath is as follows:
Rule XXV
No wiggle room there. He’s in direct violation.
So it hasn't started the trial phase yet. Thanks
Sigh
It's like talking to a brick.
Link where McConnel says he has no intention of running a fair trial? Impartial juror is nowhere close. The claim was he said he had no intention of running a fair trial. Where's the quote?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.
Link where McConnel says he has no intention of running a fair trial? Impartial juror is nowhere close. The claim was he said he had no intention of running a fair trial. Where's the quote?It really is sometimes, haha. Do you think a trial in which jurors publicly stated their intention to violate their oaths before the trial started would be considered fair?
Please answer that specifically.
Link where McConnel says he has no intention of running a fair trial? Impartial juror is nowhere close. The claim was he said he had no intention of running a fair trial. Where's the quote?
I was responding to a specific post. Go follow the crumbs.That’s not what your quoted article said.
You quoted a weeks old article filled with wishful thinking that’s already proved to be wrong.
I’m pretty sure you just didn’t notice the date and thought this was new news, haha.
lol this isn't criminal court sport.A jury trial where it was uncovered that a juror had publicly stated they would violate their oath ahead of time would be a mistrial as already mentioned. It would be a mistrial because it was unfair.
Dude, this is not complicated. You were wrong, now you’re just digging a deeper hole.
I was responding to a specific post. Go follow the crumbs.
It wasn't wrong.So you decided to uncritically quote an article filled with already wrong (and frankly pathetic and desperate) claims in order to respond to another post.
Lol. Hokay.
lol this isn't criminal court sport.
It wasn't wrong.
Correct, but nevertheless the Senate MUST take an oath prior to the commencement to hear the evidence presented and act as impartial jurors.lol this isn't criminal court sport.
Are you fucking kidding me.
Well by all means specify exactly what you thought was interesting about the article then.
Sorry, aren't witnesses normally brought forward in a trial? I thought the senate impeachment was a trial of the impeachment claims?
Protip: The Senate is where the trial is. And it hasnt started.Uh... When did it get to the Senate?
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?Did you seriously not notice that article is from two weeks ago and a number of its claims have already turned out to be demonstrably wrong? I mean shouldn’t your first clue have been the author saying impeachment was likely waiting until the new year when the vote is tomorrow and a majority secured?
This is sheer desperation and wishful thinking. It is already a slam dunk on impeachment, which is why it is passing tomorrow. There’s no reason to stop investigating though because there’s likely even more impeachable conduct to uncover in the future.
I told you from the start this was how it was going to go. It was always inevitable.
Which it HAS NOT.So it hasn't started the trial phase yet. Thanks
A jury trial where it was uncovered that a juror had publicly stated they would violate their oath ahead of time would be a mistrial as already mentioned. It would be a mistrial because it was unfair.
Dude, this is not complicated. You were wrong, now you’re just digging a deeper hole.
I don't know maybe because the jury has said they have no intention of running a fair trial, allowing witnesses, and are coordinating the trial with the defense attorneys? Corruption beats facts, sadly.
McConnell is publicly stating he will violate the oath he is required to take when the impeachment trial starts. That oath is as follows:
Rule XXV
No wiggle room there. He’s in direct violation.
Correct, but nevertheless the Senate MUST take an oath prior to the commencement to hear the evidence presented and act as impartial jurors.
you are boring
Im still waiting for links that show:
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 know, there is a meaning behind words people speak, and then there are specific words and sentences. I think you may want to step back and learn the difference, as a person doesn't have to use specific words to mean something. But, just to answer you, read this article: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-trump-senate-impeachment-honig/index.html Pay close attention what it says, specially what Graham is quoted saying. The original comment stated that the Jury has stated they won't have a fair trial... when you have a Jury member (s) specifically state they are not trying to be a fair juror, as well as other comments by McConnel, it pretty much defines an unfair trial. Everything else, and your "show me where he specifically said XYZ" is just semantics.
OK. Maybe you have some insight into McConnell the rest of us dont. Good on you I guess. In the mean time, the trial hasnt even started. But in my mind, there is a collosal difference between I cant be impartial and I intend to break the law and violate my oath.
I see you ignored my suggestion about learning the meaning behind peoples words, and didn't read, or comprehend that article. Well, I guess McConnell is lying his ass off to Trump and the American people right now. I guess the closed door meetings to coordinate with the White house on what path to take for the trial that will best Defend the President is all a front and for show. Even though McConnell and others have said is their job to protect the President, which is 100% wrong by the way. I guess you are trying to tell us that all of McConnell's actions as well as other's is all a farce and a lie, and you some how believe he is lying to the American people as well as Trump and non of what he is saying is going to happen? What about not allowing the top key witnesses to testify? IF he is all about being fair, why is he denying those witnesses? Shouldn't they be testifying? You know, the ones that Trump wouldn't allow to testify? Can you please share what ever you are smoking so we can live in your fantasy world. please, we need something to help us understand your twisted thought process on this.
So apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of paraphrasing. I'll try to explain it. Paraphrasing is when a person uses language to convey the general message of what someone said without repeating it verbatim. Verbatim means word for word.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?
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?
He 100% did, he just didn't use the specific words you are looking for, which I already said is just semantics. You need to learn to understand meaning behind spoken words and actions. What does "I'm not going to be an impartial Juror" mean? Does that mean he is going to be impartial or not? If he is not going to be an impartial juror, how then can it be a fair trial? and then you have Graham who states "I'm not trying to be a fair juror" What does that mean? How can there be a fair trial if jurors admit they are not trying to be fair? Or are you trying to say that they are going to change colors once the trial starts, and they are all of a sudden going to be impartial, and/or be a fair juror. I mean these Senators are already violating their oath of office, and you think because the trial hasn't actually started yet, that what they say now means nothing?