Impeachment now certain

Since you know how the American system works. You can explain the rules of an Impeachment Trial is going to work in the Senate. Just remember, I am an ignorant Country boy from Texas. As a result, please explain thoroughly and use simple sentences.

I ask our fellow forum posters to allow Gcomeau to dazzle us with breath of knowledge and insight of American Law and how the the Senate Trial will work.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Of all those witnesses, only 1 witness actually spoke to Trump. Which means only 1 person would be allowed to testify in a Senate Trial because he actually spoke to the President.

Someone needs to learn how evidence and trials work.

This ignorant Aussie boy will point out how it seems to him.
The Democrats control the House of Reps, so they will achieve impeachment.
However the Republicans control the Senate so the trial will not result in the impeachment sticking. All based on party political allegances.
Basically illustrates how some aspects of your system are lacking in sensibility.

As an Australian, my ending comment is that if Trump was our PM he would have been turfed early in his reign for moral turpitude. We've sacked much better people for far less.

Daryl wrote:This ignorant Aussie boy will point out how it seems to him.
The Democrats control the House of Reps, so they will achieve impeachment.
However the Republicans control the Senate so the trial will not result in the impeachment sticking. All based on party political allegances.
Basically illustrates how some aspects of your system are lacking in sensibility.

As an Australian, my ending comment is that if Trump was our PM he would have been turfed early in his reign for moral turpitude. We've sacked much better people for far less.

Trump's "moral turpitude" is rejecting the paradigm of the Post WW2 paradigm of America's entangling alliances. As such he is unwilling to give Ukraine a free pass on blatant corruption. He has also exposed Vice President Biden's profound corruption. Extorting a job for his drug addicted womanizing son in return for US largese constitutes extreme corruption and moral turpitude.

BTW, did I mention that creepy Joe Biden is a grandpa again? His son Hunter found time between dating his deceased brother's widow and pretending to attend board meetings in Ukrain to impregnate a stripper.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:BTW, did I mention that creepy Joe Biden is a grandpa again? His son Hunter found time between dating his deceased brother's widow and pretending to attend board meetings in Ukrain to impregnate a stripper.

I don't think you are qualified to use the word creepy because of your very creepy attitude towards women and your so called "boasting" of female "conquests".

Joat 42, That is example of the kettle calling the pot black. How much BS do you put out? What about calling out the Fly for not using statistics. That comment had me laughing at you. Personally, I do not challenge his statistics. I might argue the statistic worth or value but not his evidence. Remember, when you could not win an argument or discussion. YOU tried to use a bible verse to shut me up. The problem with that tactic is that you do not believe in God. Joat42 have a nice holiday!

smr wrote:Joat 42, That is example of the kettle calling the pot black. How much BS do you put out? What about calling out the Fly for not using statistics. That comment had me laughing at you. Personally, I do not challenge his statistics. I might argue the statistic worth or value but not his evidence. Remember, when you could not win an argument or discussion. YOU tried to use a bible verse to shut me up. The problem with that tactic is that you do not believe in God. Joat42 have a nice holiday!

So, are you okay with Fly calling Joe Biden creepy while he himself have bragged about his "conquests" in extremely creepy terms and his attitude towards women in general boils down to "oh look, breasts!".

Fly in general very seldom produces evidence, it's a lot of handwaving and "go check for yourself". And it seems any scientists not agreeing with Fly's viewpoint are part of some vast global conspiracy to force people into poverty.

And, I used that bible-verse to show the hypocrisy of a lot people that use God, the bible and their religion to "prove" that they are right. If you are going to wave your faith around in the belief that it makes you right, I'm going to use quotes from your beliefs scripture to show that you are a convenient believer, ie. you cherry pick what to believe because it suits you. And here's the rub, either your whole scripture is correct or it all falls apart.

Moral turpitude? As in being bankrupt six times, but only lost other people's money? (Unlike in the US, we hold one bankruptcy to be shameful).
Cheating on his first wife with his second, then cheating on his second with his third. Then cheating on his third while she was pregnant with his child, with porn stars. Boasting about assaulting women. Telling lies virtually every time he speaks (seen him on TV myself, not just second hand). Boasting about himself, cowardice (bone spurs), bullying those who can't defend themselves, lots more but no point telling the fans as they don't see it.

Daryl wrote:Moral turpitude? As in being bankrupt six times, but only lost other people's money? (Unlike in the US, we hold one bankruptcy to be shameful).
Cheating on his first wife with his second, then cheating on his second with his third. Then cheating on his third while she was pregnant with his child, with porn stars. Boasting about assaulting women. Telling lies virtually every time he speaks (seen him on TV myself, not just second hand). Boasting about himself, cowardice (bone spurs), bullying those who can't defend themselves, lots more but no point telling the fans as they don't see it.

Clinton was better? What choice did we have? If you honestly believe someone who set up an international foundation to sell influence to foreigners; someone who aided and abetted her husband's abuse of women; someone who spent her entire time in public office trying to enrich herself is a hands down better choice with respect to moral turpitude, you are guilty of what you accuse others of being.

Once in office he has done what he promised. While the other side has repeatedly walked all over the civil rights of citizens in their quest for power. Obama's FBI illegally surveiled citizens and abused the FISA process. The Obama administration had its members' relatives serving on the board of a company under investigation for money laundering $7.4 billion.

Moral turpitude my great Aunt Sallty! We chose someone who may just have the incentive to clean up some of this mess. A mess people you support so strongly made. This is an ugly period the US is in and we need some not afraid of getting ugly to fix it.

Joat42
The reaction to God or ID means subconsciously within your soul or psyche that you believe that God exists. This profound over reaction indicates that you actually believe God exists at some level. The problem is that means you are responsible for your actions and that terrifies you. If you did not believe in God, the mention of this subject would have no emotional over reaction within your soul or psyche. It's almost like you been programmed not to believe but a part of your soul rejects that internal programming. Maybe, this is just a programming error within yourself and you do not know how to handle the situation. Or maybe I am just full of crap but only your soul knows.

Joat42 wrote:

smr wrote:Joat 42, That is example of the kettle calling the pot black. How much BS do you put out? What about calling out the Fly for not using statistics. That comment had me laughing at you. Personally, I do not challenge his statistics. I might argue the statistic worth or value but not his evidence. Remember, when you could not win an argument or discussion. YOU tried to use a bible verse to shut me up. The problem with that tactic is that you do not believe in God. Joat42 have a nice holiday!

So, are you okay with Fly calling Joe Biden creepy while he himself have bragged about his "conquests" in extremely creepy terms and his attitude towards women in general boils down to "oh look, breasts!".

Fly in general very seldom produces evidence, it's a lot of handwaving and "go check for yourself". And it seems any scientists not agreeing with Fly's viewpoint are part of some vast global conspiracy to force people into poverty.

And, I used that bible-verse to show the hypocrisy of a lot people that use God, the bible and their religion to "prove" that they are right. If you are going to wave your faith around in the belief that it makes you right, I'm going to use quotes from your beliefs scripture to show that you are a convenient believer, ie. you cherry pick what to believe because it suits you. And here's the rub, either your whole scripture is correct or it all falls apart.

smr wrote:Since you know how the American system works. You can explain the rules of an Impeachment Trial is going to work in the Senate. Just remember, I am an ignorant Country boy from Texas. As a result, please explain thoroughly and use simple sentences.

I ask our fellow forum posters to allow Gcomeau to dazzle us with breath of knowledge and insight of American Law and how the the Senate Trial will work.

It hardly requires a JD to know this stuff smr, only a marginal interest in, you know, learning what you are talking about.

For instance, if only people who talked directly with someone accused of a crime counted as witnesses in criminal trials the VAST majority of criminal trials would end in acquittal and all the criminals would go free.

"Sure, I saw that guy running out of the bank with a bag of money and a gun, then shoot at the cops as he made his getaway, but I didn't TALK to him and ask him if he robbed the place and get him to tell me that yes he did. Oh darn, I'm not a witness, I can't testify."

Now, does that sound right to you, or does it sound like something only a freaking idiot would believe was how things worked?

Taylor didn't talk to Trump about this, but he did directly witness the extortion of the Ukrainians being carried out in Ukraine (which was his area of responsibility) by Trump's appointed representatives and can testify to that.

Hill didn't directly talk to Trump about this, but she did directly witness the Ukrainians being pressured by Trump's appointed representatives to initiate the politically motivated investigations he specifically personally tried to get Zelensky to launch against the Bidens in the White House where she was working and she can testify to that.

Holmes didn't talk to Trump directly about this, but he did directly hear Trump talking to Sondland about getting the investigations launched and he can testify to that.

Etc. So no, it's not going to be only one allowed witness in the Senate trial. It's going to be ALL of them. And the GOP may try to pull this "this is all inadmissible hearsay" BS but they aren't presiding. Roberts is. And he actually knows how the law works, even if he is biased.