It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Already Attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm not the one demanding impartiality, scooter.


You should be, libby.

If you actually care about the Constitution, as you claim.


Can you cite where, in the US Constitution, where it demands that senate members be impartial?

Thanks, asking for a friend.




posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks what's more unethical than putting a person on trial without right of reply your hatred shines through brightly




posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Not all criminal trials are predicated on a grand jury. In fact, many aren't.

All Federal felony trials are, by law.


Is it?

You tell me.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
welcome to the world of politics how it has always is and always will be



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


All Federal felony trials are, by law.


Is this one?



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm not the one demanding impartiality, scooter.


You should be, libby.

If you actually care about the Constitution, as you claim.


Can you cite where, in the US Constitution, where it demands that senate members be impartial?

Thanks, asking for a friend.


The oath to the US Constitution should be impartial, not partisan, and those who take the oath. In theory.

Thanks, speaking for the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shawmanfromny

He did say its in the bag for the president even though they have not been presented with the evidence yet.
He said the jury is on the side of the defendant.
Y'all love to whine and cry about things not being fair but it seems you really don't recognize it when you see it.

They have to take an oath to be impartial. HA! I seriously doubt any of the GOP will keep that oath.
They will all have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

The fix is in.



Look psycho, sane people are not going to impeach the president when no crime is even accused.

It is more than fair to dismiss the charges or declare trump acquitted because the charges are completely ludicrous.

1. Obstruction of Congress. The president has the right to have disputes between congress and the executive decided by the judicial branch - that is why they friggin exist. Just because you wholes want to rush the impeachment does not rob the president of his right to have the court decide the validity.

2. Abuse of power. What abuse? They can’t even state how he has abused it.



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I'd say it is analogous. Apparently you would too; otherwise you just blew your entire argument.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm not the one demanding impartiality, scooter.


You should be, libby.

If you actually care about the Constitution, as you claim.


Can you cite where, in the US Constitution, where it demands that senate members be impartial?

Thanks, asking for a friend.


The oath to the US Constitution should be impartial, not partisan, and those who take the oath. In theory.

Thanks, speaking for the Constitution.


So no, you can't.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm not the one demanding impartiality, scooter.


You should be, libby.

If you actually care about the Constitution, as you claim.


Can you cite where, in the US Constitution, where it demands that senate members be impartial?

Thanks, asking for a friend.


The oath to the US Constitution should be impartial, not partisan, and those who take the oath. In theory.

Thanks, speaking for the Constitution.


And really, if you're going to wrap yourself in the flag and Constitution, shouldn't you be defending the right to people to display confederate statues?

Or are you for knocking them down and hiding them?



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: timequake

And, trump seems to believe tha the entire intelligence community is corrupt for investigating what was going on in the last presidential election. Just cant figure out how yous balance out that that that was wrong but what was done in Ukraine wasnt..
But you seem not to understand what I was saying...
I dont know if there is anything in the biden story. But considering how the past three years have gone, I think it was rather foolish for trump to decide to 'investigate' now when it looks so obvious to many that he is just repeating what got him into trouble to begin with.


There is a good chance that there is corruption within the FBI considering the fraud relating to the FISA warrant on Carter Page. This isn't just something he made up, just like the issue with Biden isn't just some idea pulled out of thin air--unlike the investigation into Trump's campaign.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy


How would you get impartiality from the senators running for president against Trump?

Good point. We need to recuse Harris, Warren, and Sanders.

I think I heard all of them already claim that Trump is guilty and should be removed form office.

TheRedneck


And McConnell and Graham. They already claimed they have pre-determined how they will conduct or vote, regardless of anything that happens.
Fair enough?


Are we supposed to ignore the fact that Pelosi, Schift, Naddler et al., were anything but impartial during these impeachment proceedings, much less the last two and a half years?



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You read the first two lines of my posting and.. stopped reading.

This is not about the three branches of government.
This is not about the president’s rights.

It is about Moscow Mitchs already steadfast decision that Demented Donald did no wrong.

Any jury in the world would have to dismiss such a juror as pre-biased and being unfair to the process. This is not because you presume that the senator will be pro or con the case, but based on Mitchs own statement.

Dismissing this is corrupting the impeachment process.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Again.

So you're okay with the 3 senators running for president being excused from the hearings.

Good.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy


How would you get impartiality from the senators running for president against Trump?

Good point. We need to recuse Harris, Warren, and Sanders.

I think I heard all of them already claim that Trump is guilty and should be removed form office.

TheRedneck


The presiding Justice Roberts will exclude Senators running for President from the Senate Impeachment trial. They can watch, but that's all.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Maybe he should just remove all of them and make the decision himself. I mean, since we are shredding the constitution, we might as well go all out.
Robert's probably ain't gonna want to do much more than be a figurehead. He'll let the dems and republicans hash it out between them. The hearing will be a predetermined joke. But, it is gonna be fun to watch all those senators sit silently through the hearings, no cellphone or twitter to entertain them, no laptop to play golf on.
Maybe Robert's should invest in about a hundred muzzleds because the clowns are not gonna be able to keep from spouting their crap.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Hoo boy! This is gonna be one heck of a learning experience for you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Good point. We need to recuse Harris, Warren, and Sanders.


Harris dropped out.

But.



Currently, half a dozen sitting U.S. senators are running in the crowded field including Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.


www.cbsnews.com...

5 of them should recuse themselves.




posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar

Hoo boy! This is gonna be one heck of a learning experience for you.

TheRedneck


As senate majority leader he is the highest-ranking member of his party. It is expected of him to mount a defense against impeachment for his party. Same thing happened during Clinton Impeachment they worked directly with the white house to mount a defense against his charges as well. Funny people think impeachment is a trial it is not. Impeachment is a political charge ultimately the founding fathers set it up so if an impeachment occurs it would have to be a bi partisan effort. In fact Nancy used to believe that as well, unfortunately they havnt convinced any republicans of wrong doing. And the articles are almost a joke as they were unable to prove the other charges they had made.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


It is expected of him to mount a defense against impeachment for his party.

Actually, while he may consult with the President, Senators will not be mounting any defense. That will be done by Trump's lawyers. Lawyers for removal will be provided by the House.

McConnell calls for votes and establishes rules of proceedings. The Chief Justice (which may or may not be Roberts) presides over the trial based on legal precedents and the rules set by the majority. There will be no back and forth debate between Senators, only questioning of witnesses in front of the Senate by teams of lawyers.

That's what I was referring to. Dawnstar seems to think this will be a party-line debate or something. Nope.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join