Christian Forums and Message Board

Specifics and Interests => Christian Politics Forum => Topic started by: Rella on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 07:23:39

Title: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 07:23:39
Nancy Pelosi won't commit to sending articles of impeachment to Senate

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/nancy-pelosi-sending-impeachment-articles-senate/index.html

Some progressives have urged Democratic leaders to withhold the articles until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, agrees to the parameters for the Senate trial that Democrats have called for, as well as agreeing to bring in firsthand witnesses like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify.

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 09:18:28
I would let them know I would be calling hostile witnesses like Adam Schiff.  Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, etc.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 10:33:01
I would say McConnell better buck up and get his big girl panties on for a fight or start sending his resume out. I don’t have much confidence in him to fight the fight necessary.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 11:47:50
I would say McConnell better buck up and get his big girl panties on for a fight or start sending his resume out. I don’t have much confidence in him to fight the fight necessary.

Sounds like He is prepared to squash it and not really even let it go to trial.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 11:51:13
I just heard some of his speech. I am in shock over the Turtle.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 13:01:50
I just heard some of his speech. I am in shock over the Turtle.

I did not hear any of it. I am sick of Nancy's face all over the tube today so turned it off.

Question.

Do we actually believe that there are enough votes to stop  removal?

If so....then why not just jump to a vote and to heck with a trial that no lefty will believe what is said anyway
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 13:21:01
I did not hear any of it. I am sick of Nancy's face all over the tube today so turned it off.

Question.

Do we actually believe that there are enough votes to stop  removal?

If so....then why not just jump to a vote and to heck with a trial that no lefty will believe what is said anyway

He's talking about McConnell.  I listened to it on Youtube.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 13:29:17
He's talking about McConnell.  I listened to it on Youtube.

Yes, I understood McConnell. Did not get that on YouTube either ... I generally have no speaker volumn when on these  ::destroyingcomputer::  things.

And if I see her face anymore today I will not be responsible for what I say . ::frustrated::
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 13:34:19
I heard it on Rush as I went to lunch. Also sounds like Nancy will wait to send it to the Senate until they have something that will stick. She WILL  NOT ABIDE an acquital. They want it both ways. She will not stop until she finds a crime that will stick. The work of the people be damned. Not sure if that is the intent of the impeachment clause, but hey they aren’t concerned about the constitution or fairness.

The GOP better get their butts in gear and get Scotus on this to rein in the Schiff Show.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 16:07:55
I heard it on Rush as I went to lunch. Also sounds like Nancy will wait to send it to the Senate until they have something that will stick. She WILL  NOT ABIDE an acquital. They want it both ways. She will not stop until she finds a crime that will stick. The work of the people be damned. Not sure if that is the intent of the impeachment clause, but hey they aren’t concerned about the constitution or fairness.

The GOP better get their butts in gear and get Scotus on this to rein in the Schiff Show.

Not that the dems will do anything legally for this impeachment, but they voted on their articles. Surly they cannot think they can add to them before sending over to the senate.

We have 45 members of the Senate are Democrats, two are Democrat-leaning independents, and 53 are Republican.
And they need 67 to remove him... ( 2/3)

If 47 vote guilty, they still need 20 to remove him.

Even adding Murkowski, aaaargh........ brain fog ... Romney and that other GOP who leans democrat woman that is only 50.

How can Pelosi even hope for a miracle of removal?
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 16:22:49
Not that the dems will do anything legally for this impeachment, but they voted on their articles. Surly they cannot think they can add to them before sending over to the senate.

We have 45 members of the Senate are Democrats, two are Democrat-leaning independents, and 53 are Republican.
And they need 67 to remove him... ( 2/3)

If 47 vote guilty, they still need 20 to remove him.

Even adding Murkowski, aaaargh........ brain fog ... Romney and that other GOP who leans democrat woman that is only 50.

How can Pelosi even hope for a miracle of removal?

It may not even come to a vote.  It may never leave committee.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 16:28:54
It already left the committee and the articles of impeachment were voted by the whole House. It hasn’t gotten TO the Senate Committee or otherwise. To my understanding a President is not considered impeached until the Articles of Impeachment are DELIVERED TO THE senate.  That hasn’t happened since Pelosi is delaying that for whatever reason.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 17:17:39
It already left the committee and the articles of impeachment were voted by the whole House. It hasn’t gotten TO the Senate Committee or otherwise. To my understanding a President is not considered impeached until the Articles of Impeachment are DELIVERED TO THE senate.  That hasn’t happened since Pelosi is delaying that for whatever reason.

I am talking it may not get out of committee in the Senate.  It may be squashed as the garbage it is.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 18:26:56
McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they would not be impartial in the Senate trial, suggesting that they would hold a quick sham trial with few, if any, witnesses. I don't agree with Pelosi's political idealogy, but I do agree with her strategy. Trump, McConnell, and Graham all want a quick exoneration of the President, but Pelosi is going to let them twist in the wind  awhile.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 18:42:08
McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they would not be impartial in the Senate trial, suggesting that they would hold a quick sham trial with few, if any, witnesses. I don't agree with Pelosi's political idealogy, but I do agree with her strategy. Trump, McConnell, and Graham all want a quick exoneration of the President, but Pelosi is going to let them twist in the wind  awhile.

Her strategy ultimately failed already.  She should have had the twisting in the wind occur in the House with a year plus of fact finding.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 18:51:16
Why should she expect a fair trial in the Republican Senate when the GOP was completely scammed of the process in the House?

Both Houses of congress should be fair in this process as it was with Clinton. This time around in the House has been totally unfair.

Pelosi in the past has said impeachment should never be used unless it is a bipartisan decision. This wasn’t by any stretch.

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/video/flashback-pelosi-says-impeachment-is-divisive-has-to-be-bipartisan/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/video/flashback-pelosi-says-impeachment-is-divisive-has-to-be-bipartisan/amp/)

McConnell is a very fair Senator and will give her and the Dems what they deserve, which ain’t much in their charges. I believe Obama and his administration did WAY worse and likely impeachable things in spying on the candidate Trump. That is why the Durham report is going to be so important. His investigation is much broader than the IG report, which DID find 17 “irregularities” in the FBI FISA process.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 18:57:36
Not to mention what quid pro quo Joe Biden DID in his Ukranian shennanigans. There are recordings of him threatening the Ukranians to withhold a BILLION dollars in aid unless they fired the official investigating his son. Later he said, bragging, “son of a bitch, they got their billion dollars.” This all the while he was Obama’s VP. Infinitely worse than the transcript of Trump’s phone conversation. Not even close. We don’t need whistle blowers on Biden’s transgression, we have it recorded. Where was this precious house oversight on Obama and Biden? The charges on Trump are pure political derangement for getting their. Utt handed to them in the 2016 election by an outsider they didn’t take seriously. The Dems are trying to undo an election with WEAK WEAK charges and especially trying to affect the 2020 election they know they can’t win fairly. They’ve GOTTA put a scarlet letter on Trump somehow, but this ain’t it. They are screwed.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 19:08:45
Is Trump actually impeached until the charges are formally delivered to the Senate? If yes, by the constitution, the Senate has the SOLE duty try the charges. Pelosi can’t or shouldn’t have it both ways, but wait for the McCain wing of the GOP in the Senate to show their butts.

Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler were ‘t the least bit concerned with a fair process in the House. They could have! But of course the charges wouldn’t flown. The GOP arguments were ignored and bulldozed. It’s NOT a joint House/Senate process with the Senate trial. I assumed Pelosi had read the constitution before proceeding.

As to partisan rancor, their is no one in congress untainted or impartial. ESPECIALLY the three Amigos, Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler. Like McConnell said, the Senate was MADE for situations like this to put the brakes on obvious partisan rage. As it should with this case as it did with Clinton’s case which involved real crimes.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Thu Dec 19, 2019 - 19:14:42
There is a stickied thread in the political forum about the constitution. Pull it up and see for yourself what is says about impeachment and which house of congress does what.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: 4WD on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 06:04:59
McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they would not be impartial in the Senate trial, suggesting that they would hold a quick sham trial with few, if any, witnesses. I don't agree with Pelosi's political idealogy, but I do agree with her strategy. Trump, McConnell, and Graham all want a quick exoneration of the President, but Pelosi is going to let them twist in the wind  awhile.
I think we can all conclude that lack of impartiality is based upon the lack of evidence in the impeachment fiasco by the House democrats.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 06:26:35
McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they would not be impartial in the Senate trial, suggesting that they would hold a quick sham trial with few, if any, witnesses. I don't agree with Pelosi's political idealogy, but I do agree with her strategy. Trump, McConnell, and Graham all want a quick exoneration of the President, but Pelosi is going to let them twist in the wind  awhile.

Norton, politicians aren't impartial.

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 07:18:02
Impartial politicians is an Oxymoron. The plain morons think that only Democrats are impartial, which this process has soundly disproved.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 08:47:02
McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they would not be impartial in the Senate trial, suggesting that they would hold a quick sham trial with few, if any, witnesses. I don't agree with Pelosi's political idealogy, but I do agree with her strategy. Trump, McConnell, and Graham all want a quick exoneration of the President, but Pelosi is going to let them twist in the wind  awhile.

You agree with her strategy?   That she is just trying to shove it to the Republicans in a last ditched effort
to screw around with them?

Few if any witnesses.... How many witnesses did the dems provide in their sham hearings that FORCED them to lower their initial charges to what they are?

The Republicans were not permitted a single witness until the day of the so called experts.

Then they were permitted Jonathan Turley, ONLY because he is a dem and voted for Hillary.

There is no charge that would be an actual impeachment charge, but the lying dems dont care cause it is their rules in this game.

So, why should there be a long dragged out trial with witnesses who will be biased on one side or the other.

Nancy on the other hand said she was not going to release the docs until there was "proof".Meaning, until
they find a way to make it stick... their sick ideas of what their charges are.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 09:20:14
More and more law and constitutional scholars (even Democratic lawyers) are starting to claim Trump cannot be considered officially impeached until the articles of impeachment have been delivered to the Senate.  So looks like Nancy is the one backed into the corner now.

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1208004658616307712
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 09:31:46
Nancy should know that! She can’t have it both ways. For Trump’s sake I hope she keeps trying because it is a winning strategy for Trump. People see through this crap all over the country.

What I hope is that people’s memory is fresh in the congressional races. We got the Pelosi abomination in the midterm brain fart of 2018. Remember elections have consequences. Do we all want Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, AOC, Talib, and Omar in control of anything?
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Texas Conservative on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 09:40:52
Nancy should know that! She can’t have it both ways. For Trump’s sake I hope she keeps trying because it is a winning strategy for Trump. People see through this crap all over the country.

What I hope is that people’s memory is fresh in the congressional races. We got the Pelosi abomination in the midterm brain fart of 2018. Remember elections have consequences. Do we all want Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, AOC, Talib, and Omar in control of anything?

AOC can clean my house.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 10:32:05
AOC can clean my house.

 ::frown::
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 19:12:09
Her strategy ultimately failed already.  She should have had the twisting in the wind occur in the House with a year plus of fact finding.
True. She should have waited on the Supreme Court to rule whether or not the White House could defy Congress's subpoenas for documents and Executive employee witness testimony. But since the evidence she had did not convince a large majority of voters, as she probably thought it would, a delay is the best option available for her. Meanwhile, whether or not it is fair or completely legal, the President wears a scarlet "I". That may not mean a lot to most people, but I assure you it means a lot to him
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 19:33:49
Every President has exercised executive privelege in withholding documents and other things just as Trump has done as the constitution gives the President whoever he is that right. That has been going on with every President in my lifetime and the same accusations are always made against every sitting President. Which is why the obstruction of Congress charge is lidicrous. He will wear these charges well and will win in 2020. If Pelosi doesn’t deliver the articles to the Senate, many legal experts say he isn’t impeached. Pelosi must have just discovered he has NO chance of being removed just as Clinton wasn’t. As McConnell said, this is just what the Senate was made for, to cool down unreasonable partisan rage. It happened with Clinton and it WILL HAPPEN TO Trump. The difference is it will energize Trump supporters and add to the the existing ones because The people see the foolishness of the charges. Trump is the only man I know that could take the load of unmitigated caca thrown at him. Any other Republican would have long ago caved and rolled up in the fetal position sucking his thumb like W demonstrated in his second term. Trump hates it because of his family, but make no mistake, this energizes him and his supporters and the unfairness of it all draws new supporters and the Dems realize it. They have screwed up BIG time. And I’m grateful! The gift that keeps on giving!

I am hoping against hope that with the Durham investigation we will see some orange jump suited  perp walks soon. Or a late night raid at Peter Strozk and Lisa Page’s illicit liason. Maybe we could find something on bugeyed pencil necked Adam “Fairness” Schiff. That would be delicious!

I would say the Bidens will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do once some real questions are asked about the real shennanigans in all this, thank you Quid Pro Joe! It’s fixin’ to get exciting!
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 20:21:46
Norton, how can Pelosi’s delay in sending the charges to the Senate NOT be considered an abuse of power? The Dems ought to impeach HER! She is doing irreparable harm to the Democrat party mainly because she is hostage to the AOC, Talib, Omar wing of the party. ain’t it great. We couldn’t script it better!!
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 20:22:31
Trump may not be impeached if Pelosi declines to send articles to Senate: Harvard professor  Noah Feldman

https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/trump-may-not-be-impeached-if-pelosi-declines-to-send-articles-to-senate-harvard-professor/

When asked if she could guarantee that articles would be sent some day, Pelosi responded: “That would have been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/nancy-pelosi-laurence-tribe-impeach-and-withhold.html
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 20:40:17
I’ve got news for her and Norton, Trump will not consider himself impeached if the charges are ‘t sent. AND McConnell will be more than happy to delay the trial to right before the election and give a true October surprise to Pelosi etal........ quit gnawing on the gavel Nancy and hand it over!
 rofl

The sulliers have been sullied almost beyond repair with this impeachment scam. And it’s getting worse by the day. Shhhhhh keep delaying Nancy!
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Fri Dec 20, 2019 - 23:48:13
Norton, how can Pelosi’s delay in sending the charges to the Senate NOT be considered an abuse of power? The Dems ought to impeach HER! She is doing irreparable harm to the Democrat party mainly because she is hostage to the AOC, Talib, Omar wing of the party. ain’t it great. We couldn’t script it better!!
The same way that not responding to House subpoenas would not be considered an abuse of power. It depends on which faction you favor. In my opinion, withholding subpoenas and witnesses from Congress, and a long delay in delivering the charges to the Senate are both bad faith practices. If Pelosi delays as long as Trump has withheld, she is just as guilty of bad faith practices as he is. Maybe the courts will decide these questions, but by then it will probably be too late for this impeachment. And I pray there will not be another for years to come.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 07:14:49
No it depends on the constitution.  Trump’s executive privelege he invoked was invoked by every President at some time or other, especially the ones in my lifetime. That never is obstruction. Now what Nancy is doing is not in the constitution. nor was it practiced by either party in the other impeachment proceedings. The house brings charges to the Senate. The Senate conducts the trial. End of story. The decision to impeach was made. Impeach him or admit the whole thing was a sham, but NO, what she is doing is unprecedented. They know or should know that he will win the 2020 election either way. Throw their scarlet mark on him and move on to the people’s OTHER BUSINESS. Or preferrably they could just let Trump fix everything by himself as he has done for three years. If  Nancy wants to withhold the charges until closer to the election, i encourage her to do just that.

 rofl
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: thefixer on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:18:14
18 U.S. Code § 1505.   Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.


Congress was investigating allegations of crime having been committed by Donald Trump...fact.
Congress issued subpoenas to the white house (and others) seeking more information in which reach a conclusion...fact.
Donald Trump, president of the US, refused to comply, and ordered others to not comply, knowing that doing so is a crime....fact.
Donald Trump committed a crime by violating 18 U.S. Code § 1505....fact.

Regardless of how one feels about the validity of the investigation, how it was brought to light (the whistleblower, etc.), or how the investigation was handled, one thing cannot be denied....Donald Trump committed a crime by refusing to release the information, and allow the testimonies sought by congress, to the investigation.

It shouldn't matter how one feels about the accomplishments of Trump, or about him as a person. What should matter to every American, who believes in the rule of law, is that our president violated that law that we all must abide by (whether we think it justified or not). No one, who believes in the rule of law, should be supporting this president in this matter.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:37:10
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:48:08
They exercised Executive privelege just like every other administration in similar inquiries. Nothing corrupt about executive privelege. That’s the way coequal branches of the government work. The whistle blower is immaterial. We had a transcript rather than a third party hear say. Congress DOES NOT have unchallengeable power over another branch namely the Executive branch.

Why wasn’t Obama impeached by his invoking of executive privelege? Because EVERY President invokes it. It is understood except in the case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Let’s use our heads and apply a little history, shall we?

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:54:20
They exercised Executive privelege just like every other administration in similar inquiries. Nothing corrupt about executive privelege. That’s the way coequal branches of the government work. The whistle blower is immaterial. We had a transcript rather than a third party hear say. Congress DOES NOT have unchallengeable power over another branch namely the Executive branch.

Why wasn’t Obama impeached by his invoking of executive privelege? Because EVERY President invokes it. It is understood except in the case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Let’s use our heads and apply a little history, shall we?

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6tOgF_w-yI
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:56:00
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.

POTUS did nothing illegal.

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 12:52:24
AOC can clean my house.

You'll have to get in line.

https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1208451215249608705
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:19:17
POTUS did nothing illegal.
i am open to that. But the transcript of Trumps conversation with Zelenski makes it looks to my like he did do something illegal. If we had witnesses from the Executive Dept who would rebut or reinterpret the story I think I see told by the transcript, instead of seeming to confirm it, then I would change my view. All I have seen from the White House and Republicans so far is name calling, yammering about the rules, cries of second hand information when witnesses with first hand information are ordered to not testify, cries of prejudice, trying to expose and making veiled threats to the whistleblower, when it is their duty to protect him or her.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:25:09
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.

Intimidated the" gutless wonder"? 

How? I heard nothing of an arranged suicide for him/her.

You cannot have one branch of government, represented by the members of the US congress stipulating "the way it is to be."

No legal council of POTUS was permitted in the initial  hearings of Schiffs.

No questions were permitted to be asked by the republicans of the witnesses in those initial hearings.

POTUS was denied being allowed to be present for all the hearings.

So what was Schiff and company going to do with any docs? Other then to phrase their own questions to
their own witnesses in such a way as to get the answers they wanted and not a chance for anyone onthe right side to counter with any questions unless Schiff permitted it ... and he did not in the closed door sessions and mostly forbid it in the televised ones.

POTUS did nothing wrong.... but the spin masters have trumped up a bogus charge
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:25:46
i am open to that. But the transcript of Trumps conversation with Zelenski makes it looks to my like he did do something illegal. If we had witnesses from the Executive Dept who would rebut or reinterpret the story I think I see told by the transcript, instead of seeming to confirm it, then I would change my view. All I have seen from the White House and Republicans so far is name calling, yammering about the rules, cries of second hand information when witnesses with first hand information are ordered to not testify, cries of prejudice, trying to expose and making veiled threats to the whistleblower, when it is their duty to protect him or her.

Norton, here's a little advice for you - Never testify in court unless you absolutely have to - especially when you know the judge and prosecutors are biased and are playing dirty. The often used narrative of "If you're innocent and have nothing to hide, you'll gladly welcome investigations and court trials!" is pretty stupid.

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 15:53:14
 Norton, would Obama withholding appropriated aid from Ukraine for 8 years while Russia waltz into Crimea be illegal? The funds Obama had withheld were appropriated and waiting to be released to Ukraine so they could defend themselves against the Russian hordes? Or was Quid pro Joe’s offer to the Ukranean investigator of his spirit on legal or prudent? Biden was the VP of the US offering a clear quid pro quo to the Ukraneans if they fired the investigator in investigating his son. Biden even brags on tape that well Son of bitch, they got their Billion dollars. This is classic corruption. Along with the fake Russian dossier in 2016, which was clear Russian collusion by Hillary’s campaign. You HAVE TO see this or you have missed the whole thing as Pelosi et al have.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 23:34:35
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 06:29:30
He has been obcessed with the shennanigans in the 2016 election. Especially since the Left hashtag been wholly consummed with it and can’t accept the result of the election.

And just how do you think Ukraine could defend itself against Russian aggression with non-llethal aid. Office supplies and laptops would not stop Russia’s aggression.No it was the big stuff that Obama withheld. Part of his Russian Reset. The flexibility he whispered to Medveyev inadvertantly on the open Mike. Also whatever spying was done on Trump’s campaign was done with the knowledge and approval of Obama. A historical scandal that is being ignored. THAT is the impeachable offense though unfortunately too late like Joe Biden’s blatant quid pro quo with the Ukranians. This whole impeachment thing is a three year long hissy fit by the Left because they hate him and will not accept the result of the election. Exactly what they accused him of not being being willing to in the campaign. They are experts at projecting what they indeed are guilty of onto Trump. It’s mind boggling if one has an open mind. This is why Hillary was so aghast at getting defeated. She had the thing RIGGED and she still lost.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: 4WD on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 07:51:08
And we should not believe for a minute that the three year long hissy fit by the dems will stop even if the Senate tries him and judges his not guilty.  In fact all indications are that if the Senage exonerates him they will simply come up with more BS as a hindrance to his efforts.

The left, as a group, is really a disgusting lot.  They call themselves socialists, but they are really communist wannabees.  A socialist is actually a communist who doesn't have the power to take by force what they want from the rest of us  ----  YET.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 08:09:35
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.

First of all, You did read what was said to Zelinsky, did you not?

The attached link is from CNN. Not a right wing biased source.

It is only 6 pages long.

 The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the·
:whole situation .. I think you're _surrounding yourself with some
of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you to get to the
bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an
incompetent performance-, but they. say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you. do it
if that's possible.  ( He says Whatever you can do "IF")

 The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor
who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people
involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney
General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad
news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad
news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing,
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

You can see what Zelinsky replied to these by hitting the link

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

NOW... compare what they were screaming about against Trump and this phone call to what Joe Biden actually said...at...

The bragging happened at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018. The former vice president was on a stage with CFR’s president, Richard Haass. The video of it is on Youtube.com. Mr. Biden is talking one of his visits to Kiev.

“I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee,” Mr. Biden said.

“I had gotten,” he added, “a commitment from [President] Poroshenko and from [Prime Minister] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘you have no authority. You’re not the president.’”

“The president said — I said, call him,” Mr. Biden replied, evoking, the CFR transcript notes, laughter.

“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in,’ I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. [Laughter.] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

The entire link is an interesting read:
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/well-son-of-a-bitch-ukraine-scandal-is-about-biden/90846/

This was the Vice President of the United Sates....

AND if the left has anything to say about it he WILL be president in the next election.

Compare the businessman, who wrote "The Art of the Deal" and has put this country to heights it never has been, with his business tactics

to the strong arm tactics of the likes of Biden, which was bribery.

They got to get rid of Trump before he does ANY MORE GOOD for us.

They know that they will never be able to maintain what he has done. Never so they want no more.Period.

I might add that if you have not, as yet, read Jonathan Cahn's, " Paradigm"... you truly should

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 08:36:50
I agree Rella. The Paradigm gives extraordinary imsight as to what’s going on today as well as the Obama years.

As I said before, the media has missed the greatest scandal in American history, to foist this scam on the public.

Durham will get to the bottom of it and I am going to laugh my butt off. His purview is much broader than Mueller’s and the IG.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 09:58:03
And we should not believe for a minute that the three year long hissy fit by the dems will stop even if the Senate tries him and judges his not guilty.  In fact all indications are that if the Senage exonerates him they will simply come up with more BS as a hindrance to his efforts.

The left, as a group, is really a disgusting lot.  They call themselves socialists, but they are really communist wannabees.  A socialist is actually a communist who doesn't have the power to take by force what they want from the rest of us  ----  YET.

+1

Yes, they've already stated they plan on keeping him in a perpetual state of impeachment.

The U.S. is split. One group wants liberty and opportunity. The other wants a daddy state, where daddy takes care of every need and makes everything fair and everyone equal. This may sound weird, but I don't understand men who want a daddy state. It's the antithesis of the strong male archetype. Instead of "Stand aside, let me provide for own and others" - it's "Daddy, take care of me, and THAT'S NOT FAIR, DADDY!!!" I realize that sounds a bit harsh, but there's nothing manly about grown men wanting daddy government to care for their every need, IMO.

While I'm at it -
It's not very manly for a grown man to be pro-choice.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 10:07:20
+1

Yes, they've already stated they plan on keeping him in a perpetual state of impeachment.

The U.S. is split. One group wants liberty and opportunity. The other wants a daddy state, where daddy takes care of every need and makes everything fair and everyone equal. This may sound weird, but I don't understand men who want a daddy state. It's the antithesis of the strong male archetype. Instead of "Stand aside, let me provide for own and others" - it's "Daddy, take care of me, and THAT'S NOT FAIR, DADDY!!!" I realize that sounds a bit harsh, but there's nothing manly about grown men wanting daddy government to care for their every need, IMO.

While I'm at it -
It's not very manly for a grown man to be pro-choice.

The more demasculation that takes place with what the women have "accomplished" the more the men will want their daddy to protect them.

Proof being all those 35 year old males, college grads, living in their parents basement.

That is why POTUS is such a breath of fresh air.

Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 10:08:32
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.

All this mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture is just that - mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture.
If I could read minds as well as you, Sondland, and everyone else who claims to know what Trump was thinking, I'd become a gypsy psychic and make a fortune.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ornjMRctWhp6cKoCs/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 20:31:56
All this mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture is just that - mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture.
If I could read minds as well as you, Sondland, and everyone else who claims to know what Trump was thinking, I'd become a gypsy psychic and make a fortune.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ornjMRctWhp6cKoCs/giphy.gif)
Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about. For example, Was the the cause of the violent death wanton first degree murder, manslaughter, or an accident.
?


Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 22:00:20
Yes that’s why we are so ancious for Obama’s administration to get investigated. The media is not doing their job. Typically before journalism died, an investigative journalist like Sam Donaldson used to be every politician on both side’s worst nightmare. We need that level of curiousity again. An honest media IS what makes a free society work.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 00:00:21
Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about. For example, Was the the cause of the violent death wanton first degree murder, manslaughter, or an accident.
?

Nice try, but no cigar, Norton.

"Mind reading" doesn't determine the charge in a murder case. Evidence or lack of evidence determines the charge. smh

A charge of first degree murder sticks when evidence shows the murder was planned ahead of time.
Example: Perp leaves evidence trail of buying bomb making supplies and Internet searches of how to blow up a building full of people, then proceeds to do so. Evidence proves the murder was planned ahead of time -  not a prosecutor or jury reading the perp's mind.

A second degree murder conviction occurs when there is a lack of evidence that shows pre-planning.

Another thing - supposition is not allowed in court. Haven't you watched enough Perry Mason in your lifetime to know supposition and conjecture is not allowed in determining guilt or innocence? Again, it's evidence or lack of evidence that determines these charges - not mind reading.



Please try harder, Norton.





Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 08:15:28
That’s right Mommydi. And since the Dems have little evidence, they DID resort to mind reading. Total miscarriage of justice. While letting REAL CRIMES In the Obama administration go. Obama’s administration absolutely did spy on an opposition candidate in 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign. The foreign collusion was with the phony dossier. Not to mention seeding the administrative ranks of government with traitors like Lisa Page, Peter Stzrok, Bob Mueller, Clapper and many others. This subterfuge is WAY worse than a phone call with the Ukranian president, of which we have a transcript.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 10:39:25
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Of course you guys are not old enough to remember that when it was happening.  ::smile:: But that is what we are trying to determine with this impeachment thing. We have records of some of the President's words and actions surrounding some of this. What was his motive in holding up the Ukraine aid and when he asked Zelenski to investigate the Bidens and find the Crowdstrike server ? Without more evidence it can't be determined with satisfactory certainty. With what I have to go on, it looks like his motives were bad. And when he blocks evidence. even if the blocking is legal, it looks worse. If the Senate clears the President along party lines, I accept it. The Senate is under no legal obligation to provide more evidence one way or the other, or to say why they think the President is innocent.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 10:54:40
Why isn‘t what Biden admitted to doing with HIS Ukrainian quid pro quo not worthy the same scrutiny? His crooked son benefitted from what Joe was doing, in having the Ukrainian investigator investigating his son fired. To me this seems FAR worse than what Trump is accused of and what we have a transcript nullifying any whistle blower. No way can Biden’s clear corruption not be at least as bad as Trump’s accusations.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 11:39:28
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Of course you guys are not old enough to remember that when it was happening.  ::smile:: But that is what we are trying to determine with this impeachment thing. We have records of some of the President's words and actions surrounding some of this. What was his motive in holding up the Ukraine aid and when he asked Zelenski to investigate the Bidens and find the Crowdstrike server ? Without more evidence it can't be determined with satisfactory certainty. With what I have to go on, it looks like his motives were bad. And when he blocks evidence. even if the blocking is legal, it looks worse. If the Senate clears the President along party lines, I accept it. The Senate is under no legal obligation to provide more evidence one way or the other, or to say why they think the President is innocent.

Before you say another word you need to explain what you think is meant my what was said.

And then give us the definition of is.

Assuming your first language is Englishor American English TELL US WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS
in red is............



 The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine
, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the·
:whole situation .. I think you're _surrounding yourself with some
of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you to get to the
bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an
incompetent performance-, but they. say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you. do it
if that's possible.
  ( He says Whatever you can do "IF")

 The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor
who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people
involved
. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney
General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad
news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad
news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing,
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you ·can look into it
... It sounds horrible to me.

What is wrong with this.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 11:55:21
Rella, we all know it is not what was said that causes this heartburn, it is what they believe he meant. Not nearly as clearcut as what Biden said in his very public recording of HIS quid pro quo, as the then BO of the US, which in my opinion is MUCH worse than the implications of Trump’s phone transcript. One HAS to suppose motive over and above the actual words in Trump’s phone call. Biden was breagging and laughing about his successful threat against his son’s Ukrainian investigator. Massive problems! Of course with Trump being a huge prolife advocate, the forces that be cannot abide him and his prolife policies and judicial appointments. There is always more to the story, especially during this time of year when pro abortion family members are visiting. The most pro life President in my lifetime cannot have a moments peace from the Molech sect.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 12:50:37
Also, if being an opposition candidate excluded Biden from being investigated, why wasn’t Trump afforded the same status when Obama spied on him as an opposition candidate? I realize it is the party differences that I don’t expect anyone to admit.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Rella on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 17:10:42
Rella, we all know it is not what was said that causes this heartburn, it is what they believe he meant. Not nearly as clearcut as what Biden said in his very public recording of HIS quid pro quo, as the then BO of the US, which in my opinion is MUCH worse than the implications of Trump’s phone transcript. One HAS to suppose motive over and above the actual words in Trump’s phone call. Biden was breagging and laughing about his successful threat against his son’s Ukrainian investigator. Massive problems! Of course with Trump being a huge prolife advocate, the forces that be cannot abide him and his prolife policies and judicial appointments. There is always more to the story, especially during this time of year when pro abortion family members are visiting. The most pro life President in my lifetime cannot have a moments peace from the Molech sect.

No... in this case it is what Norton understands as he reads this.

Then we can get to the crux of why the left cannot understand

Which will not happen cause it is pure hatred on their part.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 17:29:46
Yes it IS pure hatred. The sad thing is that all of this will sully the impeachment process for generations if not for ever.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 18:23:22
Rella
...I will say we do a lot for Ukraine. We spent a lot of effort and a lot of time. [ There is 391 million the US is about to give Ukraine, but for some unknown reason it is being held up ] ...I wouldn't say that it is reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very good to Ukraine... I would like for you to do us a favor though...

If my bank had approved a loan that I needed very badly, but the disbursement of the funds was being held up for some unexplained reason, and then if the Bank President called and said words similar to the above, asking for a favor that would personally benefit him, I would think the Bank Pres was a crook.

Something else about the transcript: Zelenski agreed with almost everything Trump said except that the prosecutor Biden got fired was a "very good" prosecutor. Zelenski said he would appoint a "very good" prosecutor who was approved by the parliament.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 18:36:41
Of course he was a very good prosecutor, that is why Biden took the quid pro quo measures he did, Biden wouldn’t want a good investigator investigating his son. Crooks usually don’t want excellent people investigating them. Doesn’t the spectre at least smell weird to you as to Biden? It sure does to me.

Again, I must ask you, if Biden was declared immune to investigation by being an opposition political candidate, why wasn’t Trump afforded the same courtesy as Obama’s administration and FBI higher ups scammed to cheat him out of the election. Why? Because incompetent Hillary thiught she could only be defeated by cheaters. She KNOWs because she cheated greatly herself and you can’t out screw a Clinton! Stay tuned, this is the biggest story in history.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: mommydi on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 19:08:23
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

I see what you did there.
You first claim, "Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about."
Then I state  - no - it's about evidence. Without evidence, intent can't be established.
Then you sneakily add "evidence" to your mind reading narrative.

Asking, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" is just a question - not evidence. Wondering what is in someone's mind is one thing. Claiming to read minds is another. Convicting someone on little to no evidence just because you say you can read their minds is a road you don't want to go down.

I'm talking to my daughter about this. She's halfway through law school, and her current job entails knowing the law in government settings.

She says- "Lol, no, mind reading is impossible. It's all based on how much evidence is available (or obtainable) to prove the level of intent needed to satisfy first degree." IOW, evidence points to intent, but if there's little or no evidence, it doesn't prove intent. So your mind reading strategy for proving guilt is nonsense.



Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Norton on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 20:11:28
I see what you did there.
You first claim, "Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about."
Then I state  - no - it's about evidence. Without evidence, intent can't be established.
Then you sneakily add "evidence" to your mind reading narrative.

Asking, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" is just a question - not evidence. Wondering what is in someone's mind is one thing. Claiming to read minds is another. Convicting someone on little to no evidence just because you say you can read their minds is a road you don't want to go down.
I'm talking to my daughter about this. She's halfway through law school, and her current job entails knowing the law in government settings.

She says- "Lol, no, mind reading is impossible. It's all based on how much evidence is available (or obtainable) to prove the level of intent needed to satisfy first degree." IOW, evidence points to intent, but if there's little or no evidence, it doesn't prove intent. So your mind reading strategy for proving guilt is nonsense.
Your daughter is right. Of course we need evidence to determine motive and intent. Motive and intent is what an accused was thinking before, during or after the alleged crime was committed. The evidence can be forensics, records, or testimony from witnesses. Come on now. You understood I was not saying investigations and trials are conducted using telepathy, didn't you.
Title: Re: And Nancy just said this
Post by: Jaime on Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 21:20:55
Norton, I am serious as a heart attack. There is shennanigans far more serious than what you think Trump did. My problem with Pelosi et al was their patent unfairness in the process. You HAVE to instinctively know this. The Dems have no room to demand any fairness after the sham they pulled in the house.