McConnell should not take the oath

[bubbabgone]

Refute it. Take you time.

Which one? I don't like long posts.

 

[TomFitz]

No it isn't documented fact. It's partisan fantasy and nonsense.

How does it feel to know the IG's report destroyed the lies and distortions your leadership, and your MSM propaganda ministries have been feeding you all these years?

But I'll leave you to it.

The IG’s report did not address any of the points I raised at all. Not one.

You’re just making it up now.

If you want to refute my post, do so.

Make a legitimate argument, and support it with evidence.

I can. Let’s see you even try.

 

[Perotista]

Impeachment Trials and the Senator’s Oath of Impartial Justice | Take Care
For McConnell will certainly violate that oath by the way he is handling the trial against Trump in the Senate. He will work with the defendant, Trump, to see that there is a little hurt to Trump's chances of re-election as possible and has stated that the outcome is already predetermined. All of which violates the oath he will take as a juror in the trial. Of course, we have seen that McConnell has never even taken his oath of office seriously, so I guess that violating this oath means even less to him. I wonder if he has gone to one knee and taken a solemn oath to subjugate himself to the will of Trump as it seems he must have done. Perhaps that is the oath he is really willing to obey?

These things always seem pre-determined as impeachment is purely a political process, not a legal one. The huge difference between today and impeachments of the past is the facade of impartiality isn't being hidden. Everyone knew well in advance the Democrats were going to vote not guilty during Bill Clinton's trial. It was their duty to protect Bill and ensure he remains as president.

Impartiality, perhaps not the right word, maybe open minds one way or the other was there more with Nixon's impeachment in the senate. At least 9 Republican senators made up their mind to vote Nixon guilty prior to his trial beginning. So impartiality wasn't there either. I don't think you can take the partisanship out of politics or in this case a political process. Don't forget, the Democrats in the senate for Trump have their minds, their verdict already prior to the trial. They're certainly not impartial either. This goes for both sides, for Trump, during Bill Clinton's.

Nixon's impeachment was in an entirely different political era. The polarization, the ultra high partisanship, the loyalty to a political party and the desire to destroy a sitting president wasn't there or at least were at very low levels. Compared to today anyway. The Republicans had a hard one against Bill Clinton for some reason, just as the Democrats do for Trump today. Apples to Oranges for sure, but the vindictiveness of the opposite party is there for all to see. That is if one can get past their deep red or deep blue colored glasses which most partisans or loyal party members can't.

 

[TomFitz]

Which one? I don't like long posts.

We both know which post we’re talking about. You’re playing juvenile games now.

I challenged you to refute my points.

Instead I got childish games.

I posted a detailed account, which i can support.

You responded with an empty generalization about “BS to repeat”.

Since you’re unwilling to address the facts, and can’t document how any of it is bS, the conclusion is obvious.

Once again, you can document your false claims. But we both know you won’t. And we both know you can’t.

 

[bubbabgone]

We both know which post we’re talking about. You’re playing juvenile games now.

I challenged you to refute my points.

Instead I got childish games.

I posted a detailed account, which i can support.

You responded with an empty generalization about “BS to repeat”.

Since you’re unwilling to address the facts, and can’t document how any of it is bS, the conclusion is obvious.

Once again, you can document your false claims. But we both know you won’t. And we both know you can’t.

No No.
I meant which part of that long post that I commented about.
I'm not going to comment on each line at one time. It was too long.
Which do you feel was your favorite, most incisive, line?
I'll comment on each part separately.

 

[TomFitz]

No No.
I meant which part of that long post that I commented about.
I'm not going to comment on each line at one time. It was too long.
Which do you feel was your favorite, most incisive, line?
I'll comment on each part separately.

Then do so.

 

[bubbabgone]

Then do so.

What do you see as your most damning finding?

 

[TomFitz]

What do you see as your most damning finding?

You denied my claims. Refute them.

I’m patient. You’ve already spend more time avoiding the question than you would have trying to document your claims.

 

[The AntiDonald]

At no time in the history of the United States, has a single political party moved to negate the will of 63 million citizens, and unilaterally remove the President of the United States.

Don't like the word "coup", to bad.

What about the will of the 66 million who voted for HRC? How will you spin that?

 

[Carleen]

The impeachment is 100% partisan at this point. Zero republicans have signed on.

So why shouldn't he act partisan? Everyone else is.

It’s partisan because the republicans decided to make it that way and ignore the evidence and try to defend the process. Now McConnell has decided before the trial even starts that he will side with Trump and his lawyers. He will be lying when he takes the oath.

 

[ocean515]

What about the will of the 66 million who voted for HRC? How will you spin that?

What about them? Their candidate lost. Why should I care about them?

Was their candidate elected President?

Am I to worry about losers?

 

[bubbabgone]

You denied my claims. Refute them.

I’m patient. You’ve already spend more time avoiding the question than you would have trying to document your claims.

I'm suggesting doing one at a time because to explore it right might take some back and forth.
To make it more manageable we might as well explore what you consider your most significant finding.
If you prefer to start small, you can suggest your least significant finding.
Your call.
Which will it be?
When we've exhausted the possibilities of one we can move on to another.

 

[humbolt]

QUOTE=bubbabgone;1071028657]What do you see as your most damning finding?[/QUOTE]

Can't speak for Tom, but for me, finding that partially frozen fox turd on a bale of hay on Wednesday was proof positive that Trump colluded with the Russians. The investigation was completely justified. So, if you can't accept the frozen fox turd as proof positive an investigation was justified, there's simply no way forward.

 

[ocean515]

It’s partisan because the republicans decided to make it that way and ignore the evidence and try to defend the process. Now McConnell has decided before the trial even starts that he will side with Trump and his lawyers. He will be lying when he takes the oath.

What a ludicrous claim in light of the crushing blow Horowitz dealt the coup seekers the other day.

This whole thing has been a scam from the beginning.

Heads are going to roll, the MSM has been given their death sentence, and the rabid left has been exposed in all it's glory for the public to see.

 

[independentusa]

What about them? Their candidate lost. Why should I care about them?

Was their candidate elected President?

Am I to worry about losers?

So you do not care what the majority of Americans want? As I have said in the past, GOPers only care about winning and what is best for them, not what is best for this country and what you just said confirms what i have always thought. People who think like GOPers are the reason this country is headed down hill.

 

[apdst]

Trump solicited one from Ukraine, in exchange for aid. Also, he accepted free legal advice from an attorney currently behind bars and another who just cashed $500,000 check funneled his way via the Russians. ****er is corrupt as ****.

That wouldn't have been a campaign contribution.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Isn’t there something criminal about swearing an oath of impartiality, that he will have to do prior to the senate hearings, when he has already declared he knows exactly how he will vote before the hearing has even begun?

It sounds to me like McConnell and Nunes are going to be keeping Trump company in jail eventually. It even looks like Pence may join them. That way Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, etc... will not be feeling so lonely there anymore. It’ll be a party!

Way to drain the swamp, guys!

Quite the daisy-chain party there, of course Trump will be in the rear, because he f**** everybody.

 

[bubbabgone]

What do you see as your most damning finding?

Can't speak for Tom, but for me, finding that partially frozen fox turd on a bale of hay on Wednesday was proof positive that Trump colluded with the Russians. The investigation was completely justified. So, if you can't accept the frozen fox turd as proof positive an investigation was justified, there's simply no way forward.

Fox is nothing but turds.
Wait.
Did I misunderstand what you meant?

 

[TomFitz]

I'm suggesting doing one at a time because to explore it right might take some back and forth.
To make it more manageable we might as well explore what you consider your most significant finding.
If you prefer to start small, you can suggest your least significant finding.
Your call.
Which will it be?
When we've exhausted the possibilities of one we can move on to another.

Since you’ve refused to back up your own dismissal of the fact three times now, my point still stands unargued.

You dismissed my discussion out of hand, offering not one shread of rebuttal or facts.

Through three posts, now.

The facts remain. You posted a blanket dismissal, not supported by a single fact or piece of evidence.

At this point, is obvious that you know you don’t have an argument.

 

[bubbabgone]

Since you’ve refused to back up your own dismissal of the fact three times now, my point still stands unargued.

You dismissed my discussion out of hand, offering not one shread of rebuttal or facts.

Through three posts, now.

The facts remain. You posted a blanket dismissal, not supported by a single fact or piece of evidence.

At this point, is obvious that you know you don’t have an argument.

I'm simply asking for your best, or your worst, of what you consider facts so we can discuss it in detail.
If you can't think of any you're comfortable defending that's okay.

 

[ludin]

Having a sitting president is going to necessarily mean that lots of people voted for him. However, note that the constitution does not say that should be no reason to impeach. It was one of their safeguards against mob rule.

If you want to get rid of that, be ready for the next populist Democrat president to do whatever illegal thing he wants too, with you having no recourse. We will just say millions of people voted for him, and it shouldn’t matter. Right?

This is where you are 100% crime.
Impeachment is there for when a president does committ a crime so bad that it cannot be overlooked.

The problem that you have is that trump has committed no crime. There is no evidence of a crime.

 

[ludin]

It’s partisan because the republicans decided to make it that way and ignore the evidence and try to defend the process. Now McConnell has decided before the trial even starts that he will side with Trump and his lawyers. He will be lying when he takes the oath.

Your projection arguments are fallacies.

Pelosi came out before the transcript was released and declared trump guilty.

We had 2 weeks of hearings were not one witness could prove or show evidence of quid pro quo and in fact many even testified that they had no evidence of bribery or extortion.

We have statements from people on the phone call that there was no pressure from trump and zelenksy himself even said there was no pressure.

There is more bipartisan support against impeachment than for it right now.

So you are wrong as usual the only people acting partisan is leftist.

 

[digitusmedius]

Trump didn't accept a contribution from a foreign national.

Right. He got caught in the act of "soliciting" it (which is part of the USC's description) before the "thing of value" was delivered. Getting caught in the act of a crime, even if the crime was unsuccessful, is still a crime. Attempted bank robbery is a crime even if it fails.

 

[digitusmedius]

Trump solicited one from Ukraine, in exchange for aid. Also, he accepted free legal advice from an attorney currently behind bars and another who just cashed $500,000 check funneled his way via the Russians. ****er is corrupt as ****.

Aint it a hoot that trumphumpers think getting caught in the act of a crime is not a crime. Aren't they supposed to be all "lawnorder" and ****?

 

[digitusmedius]

Trump didn't accept a contribution from a foreign national.

Right. He got caught before the "thing of value" could be delivered but still a criminal act.