This is... Madness

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

a reply to: operation mindcrime what a load of tripe

Current US deployment middle east,
Afghanistan: 14,000 U.S. troops are in the country, plus 8,000 NATO soldiers.
Bahrain: More than 7,000 American troops, mostly Navy, maintain Persian Gulf security in Bahrain.
Troops are stationed at Naval Support-Bahrain, Shaykh Isa Air Base and Khalifa Ibn Salman Port.
Iraq: About 5,200 U.S. troops were in Iraq as of January, per the Defense Department. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said American troops are presently deployed in Iraq to help combat ISIS.
The number is likely to change soon as the Iraqi military said U.S. troops are no longer allowed to stay in the country.
Jordan: Approximately 2,795 U.S. troops support operations to defeat ISIS and promote regional stability.
Kuwait: Over 13,000 American troops are stationed in Kuwait, including those at the U.S. Army Central's forward headquarters.
The troops are stationed at Camp Buehring, Ali al-Salem Air Base, Camp Arifjan, Camp Patriot and Shaykh Ahmad al-Jabir Air Base.
Oman: A few hundred U.S. soldiers are in Oman, near the Strait of Hormuz. The country has hosted U.S. operations since 1980 and has assisted the U.S. in combating ISIS.
The troops are stationed at Port of Salalah and Port of Duqm
Qatar: As many as 13,000 American troops are in Qatar, with plans to expand bases. The Gulf nation supports U.S. efforts to combat regional terrorism.
The troops are stationed at Al Udeid Air Base and Camp As Sayliyah.
Saudi Arabia: The Trump administration announced on Nov. 19 that approximately 3,000 U.S. troops will be deployed to Saudi Arabia to protect the region "against hostile action by Iran and its proxy forces," according to a press release.
Syria: The U.S. Central Command is unable to disclose the current number of troops due to safety concerns.
A spokesperson from the DOD said approximately 2,000 U.S. service members were in Syria before Trump pulled the troops, but around 800 might remain to protect oil resources, the Military Times reports.
Turkey: The number of American troops in Turkey isn't clear, but the country's strategic location makes it valuable for transporting arms and people.
The U.S. has air bases in Izmir and Incirlik.
United Arab Emirates: 5,000 U.S. troops are stationed in the UAE, the tiny nation near to the Strait of Hormuz.
The troops are stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base, Port of Jebel Ali and Fujairah Naval Base.
Yes, but: There are other U.S. bases in the region, but the locations aren't disclosed for security purposes.
Go deeper:
White House will send 1,500 troops to Middle East amid Iran tensions
NYT: Pentagon presented plan to deploy 120,000 troops in case of Iran escalation.

www.axios.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Oh please. Did you watch the public hearings? I did. That was one of the worst displays of so-called leadership and fairness I have EVER seen, in both committees. It was an absolute circus. You could see the contempt on Schiff's face toward any statements that supported the president and I just laughed because he was pissed every time.

No, you obviously didn't watch them.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Except it wasn't a real court case. Pretty funny huh?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Iscool

There are three or four closed session witness transcripts that Adam Schiff has still not released. One of them is the intelligence community Inspector General. He is currently under investigation for lying.

Yep...I saw a couple of those reports on the 'secret' transcripts and they totally exonerate Trump...That's why Schiff won't release them...

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: operation mindcrime what a load of tripe

I know right....

I usually insert a second line here to avoid those one line posts

Peace

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

They impeached because the Democrats felt they had enough (hearsay) evidence to convict...If they already didn't have enough evidence to impeach, the impeachment process was a sham...They, and the Fake Media underestimated the general population in thinking we were stupid enough to buy their fake impeachment...

Would a prosecutor charge and put a suspected criminal on the stand without any witnesses??? That's what they're doing...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Except it wasn't a real court case. Pretty funny huh?

It is analogous to 'exploration' in a more conventional court case. Where it is determined if evidence is admissible or pertinent to the charges.

I believe that Congressional investigation is considered to have more 'legal weight' than most other court cases, and can override their decisions, except for High Court proceedings. I could be wrong, though.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Oh please. Did you watch the public hearings? I did. That was one of the worst displays of so-called leadership and fairness I have EVER seen, in both committees. It was an absolute circus. You could see the contempt on Schiff's face toward any statements that supported the president and I just laughed because he was pissed every time.

No, you obviously didn't watch them.

There's your problem, you thought it was about popularity and public approval.

originally posted by: Iscool

Yep...I saw a couple of those reports on the 'secret' transcripts and they totally exonerate Trump...That's why Schiff won't release them...

Well then, what you should do is balance them against FOIA evidence that the WH is withholding....er, have you seen them?

a reply to: CryHavoc

Yes it is - all of sound mind agree.

The question that should be asked though is:

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

I know I know - vote them out.

Well, that's not enough...

So? What now?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: CryHavoc

Pelosi is stupid, very stupid, but she has enough brain cells to know that their sham impeachment won't go any further than the teaser they put together and tossed out to their rabid supporters.

Well, if it's a sham, then Mitch McConnell should allow all the witnesses and all evidence to be admitted...he's the one that's hinting to limit proceedings...what's his fears?

It isn't fear... he understands that it is a complete waste of time.

There are no actual crimes, for instance...

Pfff.

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

www.citizensforethics.org...

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: CryHavoc

Pelosi is stupid, very stupid, but she has enough brain cells to know that their sham impeachment won't go any further than the teaser they put together and tossed out to their rabid supporters.

Well, if it's a sham, then Mitch McConnell should allow all the witnesses and all evidence to be admitted...he's the one that's hinting to limit proceedings...what's his fears?

It isn't fear... he understands that it is a complete waste of time.

There are no actual crimes, for instance...

Pfff.

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

www.citizensforethics.org...

All that says or means is that someone is good at listing false allegations without any evidence to back it up.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: CryHavoc

Pelosi is stupid, very stupid, but she has enough brain cells to know that their sham impeachment won't go any further than the teaser they put together and tossed out to their rabid supporters.

Well, if it's a sham, then Mitch McConnell should allow all the witnesses and all evidence to be admitted...he's the one that's hinting to limit proceedings...what's his fears?

It isn't fear... he understands that it is a complete waste of time.

There are no actual crimes, for instance...

Pfff.

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

www.citizensforethics.org...

All that says or means is that someone is good at listing false allegations without any evidence to back it up.

Zounds?? from a member with your avatar...

www.justsecurity.org...

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: RazorV66
Fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves..

Peace

Ummm...I really love how you can make a statement like that...and infer what your trying to infer...

yet end your schtick with..."Peace"


Why hide behind false pretenses...?

YouSir

And what was I infering, sir?

My statement wasn't as much a statement but more a part of a quote by a smarter man than me, Bertrand Russell.

It goes something like..."The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

And it was a reply to Razorv66 part of the post that said

"As for the rest of the international community, get in line because it’s now America first"

The rest of the international community does not care all that much that you guys are isolating yourselfs. By all means build that wall a little longer...like all the way around and have fun fighting each other.

Peace

Ummm...no crap...

I was never under the impression that you could form coherency...of your own accord...

So please...borrow all the work of others you need to justify your lack of fortitude when called out for your hypocrisy...

“Much better building walls along demarcations...than demarcations delineating walls around the mind”...


Do carry on...

Your eminently entertaining...





YouSir

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Oh please. Did you watch the public hearings? I did. That was one of the worst displays of so-called leadership and fairness I have EVER seen, in both committees. It was an absolute circus. You could see the contempt on Schiff's face toward any statements that supported the president and I just laughed because he was pissed every time.

No, you obviously didn't watch them.

There's your problem, you thought it was about popularity and public approval.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: neo96

I'd gladly campaign for and support any candidates that
1) Defend the Constitution
2) Bring our boys home in one piece

So you won't be voting for Pelosi or anyone in her party.

It's very very unlikely I'd be motivated to vote for anyone at all on these ballots. I vote for me I guess if I have to vote at all...

Maybe a historic or fictional character like Bugs Bunny or Marcus Aurelius could send the right message of how I feel.

AKA No Confidence / Faith in this failure that we call politics.

We need a complete revolution in thinking in terms of politics.

So bored with all this nonsense...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: CryHavoc

Pelosi is stupid, very stupid, but she has enough brain cells to know that their sham impeachment won't go any further than the teaser they put together and tossed out to their rabid supporters.

Well, if it's a sham, then Mitch McConnell should allow all the witnesses and all evidence to be admitted...he's the one that's hinting to limit proceedings...what's his fears?

It isn't fear... he understands that it is a complete waste of time.

There are no actual crimes, for instance...

Pfff.

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)
II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)
III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)
IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)
V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

www.citizensforethics.org...

All that says or means is that someone is good at listing false allegations without any evidence to back it up.

Exactly what I was thinking. The problem is, these wannabe constitutional lawyer-types think they know what's going on, but none of what they stated actually happened on the phone call according to the transcript and actual witnesses - I can't remember the guy's name from the hearing but this garbage just didn't happen.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

The senate are not allowing the evidence of documents and witness testimony to be presented.

It's a kangaroo court if they just want to listen to summary argument and then decide.

The kangaroo court was in the House.

They allowed witnesses and documentary evidence to be called, like in a real court case.

Oh please. Did you watch the public hearings? I did. That was one of the worst displays of so-called leadership and fairness I have EVER seen, in both committees. It was an absolute circus. You could see the contempt on Schiff's face toward any statements that supported the president and I just laughed because he was pissed every time.

No, you obviously didn't watch them.

There's your problem, you thought it was about popularity and public approval.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

You described the hearings in terms of facial responses and social queues.

It should have been:
- What allegations are presented?
- Is the evidence & testimony valid to the case?
- Does it indicate that the alleged acts actually occurred?
- Are there extenuating circumstances?

If 'yes' to the questions then it can proceed to trial. it matters not who scowls and who smiles.