Renzatic on 24/1/2020 at 19:11
To prosecute people who they believe to be guilty. To explain to a jury that the plaintiff is, in fact, guilty, and to provide evidence of such. How many times has the prosecution gone before a judge saying "okay, we think that Bill maybe possibly murdered his wife, but we can't say for a fact since everyone is presumed innocent." Never. They're always up there saying that the defendant is guilty, and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hell, the Republicans went on live TV, proclaiming Hillary Clinton's guilt every chance they got, so it's not like they have any room to talk. LOCK HER UP!
Nicker on 24/1/2020 at 20:49
An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial so Jeanine Pirro is doubly wrong, firstly for not knowing that while a criminal trial presumes innocence, investigators and prosecutors are under no such requirement. Secondly, apples and fucking oranges, biatch!
heywood on 24/1/2020 at 21:02
Overall I think the House Managers made their argument well, but there was a lot of repetition. And Adam Schiff sure likes hearing himself talk. I expect we'll see a Presidential run from him in the future.
The defense side will be interesting. I expect some people's credibility will be strained.
Starker on 24/1/2020 at 21:12
So, according to Lindsey Graham et al, apparently it's imperative that the impeachment trial be over by the State of the Union for some reason. Even though Clinton delivered a State of the Union without a problem while his trial was going on. The way Republicans are behaving right now, voting against witnesses and trying to rush the process and playing with fidget spinners, the attack ads are just writing themselves:
[video=youtube;PgmXzmwaDhU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgmXzmwaDhU[/video]
Going to be interesting to see how the impeachment will play out in the elections. Whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats who will reap the whirlwind.
Starker on 24/1/2020 at 22:18
So, Biden's "rapid response" director appears in a long-winded response video to respond to the Ukraine thing in a timely manner for it to get buried in the impeachment news and as a nice finishing touch, it's set in a in noisy sports bar with loud repetitive background music. A true marvel to behold:
[video=youtube;9N0tUHCpt00]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N0tUHCpt00[/video]
jkcerda on 24/1/2020 at 22:18
Quote Posted by Renzatic
To prosecute people who they believe to be guilty. To explain to a jury that the plaintiff is, in fact, guilty, and to provide evidence of such. How many times has the prosecution gone before a judge saying "okay, we think that Bill maybe possibly murdered his wife, but we can't say for a fact since everyone is presumed innocent." Never. They're always up there saying that the defendant is guilty, and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hell, the Republicans went on live TV, proclaiming Hillary Clinton's guilt every chance they got, so it's not like they have any room to talk. LOCK HER UP!
we have far too many innocent people in jail due to overzealous biased prosecutors.
anyways WWE president sure knows his crowd
(
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-march-for-life-speech-first-president-181209549.html)
WHY do you NEED any more "witnesses" if it was all hashed out in the house?
Renzatic on 24/1/2020 at 22:55
Quote Posted by jkcerda
we have far too many innocent people in jail due to overzealous biased prosecutors.
True, but on that same note, prosecuting is their job. Were this a criminal case, the prosecution claiming his guilt would be totally par for the course.
Quote:
WHY do you NEED any more "witnesses" if it was all hashed out in the house?
Because that was evidence gathering, now we're in the trial, where the witnesses will make their statements, and be crossed examined in front of a jury that will determine the defendant's guilt or innocence.
...or at least that'd be the case were the senate treating it per their Constitutional oath. They're all supposed to be impartial jurors, but they're actively coordinating with the defendant, acting more as his personal lawyers, and throwing spanners into the works to keep him from facing the full brunt of the accusations against him.
Tony_Tarantula on 25/1/2020 at 00:46
Quote Posted by Starker
Case in point, Adam Schiff's closing argument yesterday, easily on par with historical moments like, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?":
[video=youtube;ecpF26eMV3U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecpF26eMV3U[/video]
Wow....
You really know how to pick your "moments".
The comment made by Army Counsel Joseph Welch's toMcCarthy for allegedly having outed Welch assistant Frederick Fisher as a former member of the National Lawyers Guild, an officially cited Communist front. Omitted from this morality play was that Fisher had already been outed to the press and public as a former member of the Guild—by none other than Joe Welch, six weeks before this spat with McCarthy.
Starker on 25/1/2020 at 00:58
You might as well ask why have a trial at all, if it was all hashed out in the House.
Renzatic on 25/1/2020 at 01:44
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Wow....
You really know how to pick your "moments".
Well, ACCCTTTUUUAAALLLLYYYY...
