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.

 

Senate Impeachment Trial: Did you watch it all so far?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....like the one we are not watching because it is too boring apparently.

I don"t get you guys...waving the constitution like a flag when it comes to guncontrol and your right to bear arms but when your president blocks an entire branch of government from testifying based on the premise that he believes he has done nothing wrong...

yeah...I'll leave you to it.

Peace
edit on 25-1-2020 by operation mindcrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Truthfully what people watched is what hollywood has done in every lawyer tv show and film for over 20 years.

It's not about law. It's about creating a bully puplit to shovel bs.

Millions of 'Muricans eff yeah simply did not tune in.
edit on 25-1-2020 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Goedhardt

i have not watched any of it - better things to do



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Are you going to watch? What do you expect from it? Any breaking news or bombshells? 


I'll watch some of the rebuttal.

I expect the President's attorneys to do the same thing the Democrats did. Take all the same sercomstantal evidence and build an intently different story. That's the problem with sercomstantal evidence and why its not used as the back bone of argument in real trials ... it can be used to say anything you want.

I also expect the Democrat Senators to do something provocative at some point. They won't just sit quietly through out this process like they are supposed too.

edit on 25-1-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Right right, while the User deliberately, or willfully disingenuous 🤔 ignores how the impeachment kicked off.

It's like they ignore Jerry Nadler bragging on a bus full of people, after the mid terms on how it's his duty to impeachment.

It's like they ignore and forget that Nancy said on live TV that they can't trust the ballot box, that he must be stopped NOW.

It's been a known fact that Dems were looking to impeach, Pre and During 2016 elections.

It's like they ignore the fact that impeachment is a serious issue that threatens a number of things and that it would require a BI-PARTISAN consensus to initiate, otherwise it would hold NO POWER and construed as a weaponized partisan political process.

It has indeed reach those levels with as a partisan impeachment cause, voted along party lines, 2 democrat defectors and ZERO GOP support.

As a result, the House has sullied their duties and abilites, prompting a real world united GOP, not seen in years, so much so that the House literally chastised the very people they needed votes for by appealing to emotion, rather, facts.
edit on 25-1-2020 by Arnie123 because: Truth

edit on 25-1-2020 by Arnie123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....like the one we are not watching because it is too boring apparently.

I don"t get you guys...waving the constitution like a flag when it comes to guncontrol and your right to bear arms but when your president blocks an entire branch of government from testifying based on the premise that he believes he has done nothing wrong...

yeah...I'll leave you to it.

Peace


4 out of 7 "impeachment managers" voted against giving the $$$ to the Ukraine in the 1st place.....

Are you willing to go on record and say that the Bidens were not wrapped up in corruption in the Ukraine?

Lolz🤪
edit on 25-1-2020 by Scepticaldem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....

Peace


Determining whether its hearsay or deliberate should happen way before a fair trial begins.

If all a prosecutor has is hearsay (especially deliberate hearsay) they should not bring the accused to trial.

We do not hold trials in this country based on hearsay just to see who might be guilty, and to find out what they might be guilty of.

There is a high bar that gates making it into a trial. If we didn't have it, people would be accusing each other left and right as a tool to harass each other.
edit on 25-1-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I had to laugh at the fair trial part, there is nothing fair about a House majority pushing impeachment from hearsay, deliberate misinterpretation and broad interpretation.

You know what? It's just like the Mueller report, they tried that broadstroke BS themselves until AG Barr showed up and said, "Not going to work".

Congressional Democrats think we are dumb to not see or determine how they operate and ensare those they don't like with a slew of broaden implocations that would deem anyone guilty of anything.



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....

Peace


Determining whether its hearsay or deliberate should happen way before a fair trial begins.

If all a prosecutor has is hearsay (especially deliberate hearsay) they should not bring the accused to trial.

We do not hold trials in this country based on hearsay just to see who might be guilty, and to find out what they might be guilty of.

There is a high bar that gates making it into a trial. If we didn't have it, people would be accusing each other left and right as a tool to harass each other.


Yeah but here's the thing though...if the accused on trial is the reason no evidence can be brought forth?

That means your president could never be brought to trial if he blocks the evidence that might convict him, that means he would be above the law...

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....

Peace


Determining whether its hearsay or deliberate should happen way before a fair trial begins.

If all a prosecutor has is hearsay (especially deliberate hearsay) they should not bring the accused to trial.

We do not hold trials in this country based on hearsay just to see who might be guilty, and to find out what they might be guilty of.

There is a high bar that gates making it into a trial. If we didn't have it, people would be accusing each other left and right as a tool to harass each other.


Yeah but here's the thing though...if the accused on trial is the reason no evidence can be brought forth?

That means your president could never be brought to trial if he blocks the evidence that might convict him, that means he would be above the law...

Peace


Your team is "marching" 27,000 pages of documents into the Senate as we speak....

Are you insinuating he wiped anything? "What, like with a cloth?'.....

Lolz🤪



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....

Peace


Determining whether its hearsay or deliberate should happen way before a fair trial begins.

If all a prosecutor has is hearsay (especially deliberate hearsay) they should not bring the accused to trial.

We do not hold trials in this country based on hearsay just to see who might be guilty, and to find out what they might be guilty of.

There is a high bar that gates making it into a trial. If we didn't have it, people would be accusing each other left and right as a tool to harass each other.


Yeah but here's the thing though...if the accused on trial is the reason no evidence can be brought forth?

That means your president could never be brought to trial if he blocks the evidence that might convict him, that means he would be above the law...

Peace


That is all on the House. They did not do the due diligence in seeking judicial enforcement. They cannot blame Trump for their ineptness in following through with set procedures to procure evidence.

Most cases take time to go to trial, this is because the prosecutor wants to win their cases and know that they have to force through court another to handover evidence that may be used against them.

The president is not above law, he was following the law as set precedence. The branches of government our equal, that is why the legislative needed to go to court.
edit on 1 25 2020 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace


You start off with "I'm a foreigner "!

Then claim to have no horse in this race while clearly wanting Trump removed from office!

I really do owe it to my constitution.....

Lolz🤪



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace


You start off with "I'm a foreigner "!

Then claim to have no horse in this race while clearly wanting Trump removed from office!

I really do owe it to my constitution.....

Lolz🤪


If you have any other conclusion after these three days (defence has not been heard!!) you should really question yourself if it is not America but Trump you are loving.

Peace
edit on 25-1-2020 by operation mindcrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

that's your opinion...

wether it actually is hearsay and deliberate misinterpretation can only be found through a fair trial....

Peace


Determining whether its hearsay or deliberate should happen way before a fair trial begins.

If all a prosecutor has is hearsay (especially deliberate hearsay) they should not bring the accused to trial.

We do not hold trials in this country based on hearsay just to see who might be guilty, and to find out what they might be guilty of.

There is a high bar that gates making it into a trial. If we didn't have it, people would be accusing each other left and right as a tool to harass each other.


Yeah but here's the thing though...if the accused on trial is the reason no evidence can be brought forth?

That means your president could never be brought to trial if he blocks the evidence that might convict him, that means he would be above the law...

Peace


1) in most trails the accused is not a participating member in their prosecution. In fact some of the highest laws in our land protect their right not to be force into participating in their own prosecution.

It is one of those high bars that is aimed to protect the innocent. The prosecution is expected to build their case on their own with out the aid of the accused; if they can't than they simply have no case.

Does that mean that sometimes the guilty goes free because the prosecutor can't get the evidence they need for a guilty outcome? Sure, happens all the time. In our society and our chosen method of jurisprudence we put a much much higher premium on letting the innocent go free than bringing the guilty to justice. Go in we have all already agreed to let some guilty people go free if it means we save innocent people from wrongful convictions.

This enlightened philosophy can not change just because we don't like the personality of the accused or because the accused is an important person; if it could so easily be changed the protection wouldn't be worth anything.

I'm willing to let this supposed guilty president go free if it means it affirms this protection that I or my loved ones might need in the future.

2) In this particular case; where the president invoked executive privilege in a political attempt to block the prosecution from gathering some evidence that might incriminate him; there is a very clear and straightforward method of remedy that does not require the protections of our system of jurisprudence be turned on its head. The prosecution could have taken their grievance to the court; the court could have than decided if the president is compelled to turn over that evidence or if executive privelage does indeed hold in this case. The prosecution chose not to go down that path to gather the evidence they think they needed to prosecute their case. They instead forced their way into trial and unfortunately for them they are now left prosecuting a case with only sercomstantal evidence and hearsay.

Luckily for them this particular trial is steeped in politically driven rules that allow them this flexibility. If this was a real court the judge would have dismissed the case already and admonished the prosecution for trying to bring such a flimsy case in front of him. He would have ordered them to go back and do more work before they brought the case again.



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: operation mindcrime




What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.


Which part has merit?

They've been repeating all the same provably false narratives they've been trying to sell for the last 5 years. Neither of the articles of impeachment they've based their case on are crimes or meet the standard (as set by precedent or by the writings of the Framers of the Constitution) of impeachable offenses.



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I had fox on all day every day out of habit .

But after three years of listening to the Dems the impeachment was just background noise .

Like the proverbial waterfall I just tuned it out .

There’s not even any suspense, everybody knows the outcome .

It’s like putting AOC up against Ben Schapiro and betting on who says something stupid first .

edit on 25-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Scepticaldem

My team?

I refer back to Arnie's post, I am one of those "ignorant foreigners".

I have the luxury of not having to pick a side because it really has no impact on my life whether a democrat or a republican occupies the Whitehouse. What I do find is that the case that has been presented over the last three days has merit and I am really curious to see how it is going to be defended.

A judge should hear both sides objectively...since this is your president it would seem every American is a judge in this and you owe it to the constitution to put your bias aside and pay attention.

Peace
The beauty in this post is that we too have the luxury of not having to educate you on American politics, since you have no horse in this race, you're opinions and views isn't of any real value, not to say that it isn't respected, all opinions are in civil discourse, however considering the complexity that politics can be, haveing some weight in the value of your perspective goes along way to understanding some basic issues like "biases" because if you say, "you owe it to the constitution to put your biases aside and pay attention", then you haven't been following this partisan biased impeachment at all.

In all honesty, you don't like Trump, no need to beat around the bush.
You hold water for the left, no need for excuses on that perspective.
Furthermore, while you proclaim luxury in picking no side, you continually exhibit a lack of understanding by trying to appeal to a fair trial, while ignoring the basis of said biased investigation.

The House -Investigates, votes on impeachment.

To impeach means to stand accused.

The Senate -Hears case from *Complete House investigation through presented Articles. Votes on Removal or Acquittal.



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Pyle

In watching the house Managers the past few days, it became obvious by their own repititive cries, that this is all about the election. They fear Trump will win, so they cannot let America choose him again. He needs to go now!

If anyone was attacking an opponent in an election year, it is definitely the Dems as a whole. They collectively respond as an opponent.


President is accused of trying to bribe a foreign power to help the president's re-election. Cant imagine why they would be worried about the next election.



posted on Jan, 25 2020 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

1) in most trails the accused is not a participating member in their prosecution. In fact some of the highest laws in our land protect their right not to be force into participating in their own prosecution.

It is one of those high bars that is aimed to protect the innocent. The prosecution is expected to build their case on their own with out the aid of the accused; if they can't than they simply have no case.


You can't compare apple to oranges here. The President did not refuse to aid, he is said to have obstructed the prosecution from gathering evidence.


2) In this particular case; where the president invoked executive privilege in a political attempt to block the prosecution from gathering some evidence that might incriminate him; there is a very clear and straightforward method of remedy that does not require the protections of our system of jurisprudence be turned on its head. The prosecution could have taken their grievance to the court; the court could have than decided if the president is compelled to turn over that evidence or if executive privelage does indeed hold in this case. The prosecution chose not to go down that path to gather the evidence they think they needed to prosecute their case. They instead forced their way into trial and unfortunately for them they are now left prosecuting a case with only sercomstantal evidence and hearsay.


Fair enough...but I thought it made sense that (as they pointed out with other cases) that could take years before you get evidence or witnesses to comply. Since the conduct of the president brought forth in the impeachment is such a danger it holds reason to not wait that long.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join