How it is possible to acquit someone at a trial with NO witnesses when witnesses were present at the time of the CRIME?? DIRTY MONEY and DIRTY SELF-SERVING LAWYERS
POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Sunday, June 21, 2026 15:21
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 7 of 12
Quote:The Senate did NOT try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct. The Senate would have called Witnesses who are compelled, against Trump's orders, to testify. That would include looking into serious questions about the president’s personal business interests in Turkey and the Persian Gulf, as well as China and other foreign countries, along with the big-picture question of violations of the emoluments clause and his continued stonewalling of legally valid requests for his tax returns.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Nothing you post can change my mind, SECOND. Because unlike you, I actually listened to the testimony. Let me rephrase that - the SWORN testimony. Not the rumor from the NYTimes. Not Schifty's fantasizing. Not Pelosi's mean-girls high school reprisal. Not Romney's political grandstanding. The actual SWORN testimony of record. And I've watched the process. There was no overarching investigation into all the facts. There was no defense.
This was a biased political lynching based on rumor and opinion.
My reasons are sound.
The Watergate inquiry, after all, ended up uncovering evidence of misdeeds that were actually much more wide-ranging and severe than helping cover up a burglary at the DNC. But that only came about because investigators decided to really kick the tires of the whole situation rather than maintaining a laser-like focus on the easiest-to-explain narrative.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Per the constitution, that's not its job - remember? The Senate is the jury. It can't be both the investigators AND the jury.
The Senate did NOT try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct.
The House democrats blew it.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, you know nothing. You have never been on a Grand Jury, have you? They will take only a few hours to look over a case. Then a trial is scheduled, in this case at the Senate. Then the trial could last many months. And the jury, the Senate, has to sit there day after day, week after week. They even have alternate jurors, just in case a juror gets sick or does something stupid and gets kicked out of court. The judge would not want to have to redo the whole trial because one of twelve jurors was missing . . .
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:Per the constitution, that's not its job - remember? The Senate is the jury. It can't be both the investigators AND the jury.
The Senate did NOT try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct.
The House democrats blew it.
1kiki, you know nothing about real trials. Oh, and I forgot that the person on trial does not have the right to order witnesses not to testify. Trump, on trial, was ordering witnesses not to testify. That is not allowed in a real trial, but it is in Mitch McConnell's fake Senate trial.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry, but your babbling changes nothing.
The Senate is the jury. It's not the prosecution. It's not the defense. It's not a grand jury. The Senate is under no obligation to go and solicit extra testimony.
The House presented its case to the jury. But - based on the sworn testimony of the 'witnesses' - the case was weak, and the Senate decided 'not guilty'.
The House democrats blew it.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wrong again, 1kiki. 48% of the Senate voted that Trump was guilty. Trump only received 46% of the popular vote in 2016. More justification to remove him than to elect him.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I'm sorry, but your babbling changes nothing.
The Senate is the jury. It's not the prosecution. It's not the defense. It's not a grand jury.
The House presented its case to the jury. But the case was weak, and the Senate decided 'not guilty'.
The House democrats blew it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_
which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote#2016:_Donald_Trump
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Twist and turn all you want SECOND. You've failed in your arguments.
I guarantee that you've never been on a jury panel where the jurors called people to the witness stand. You've never been on a jury panel that took it upon itself to do investigation.
The Senate did its job. It rendered its judgment.
It's over.
If you want a re-do of 2016 I suggest you look to 2020 and try to figure out how the democrats could win this time.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Wrong again, 1kiki. 48% of the Senate voted that Trump was guilty. Trump only received 46% of the popular vote in 2016. More justification to remove him than to elect him.
Who would have ever though Mitt Romney would be the one to have a speck of sense??
I swear, I didn't see that one coming...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7970817/Mitt-Romney-break-Rep
ublican-Party-vote-convict-Donald-Trump.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not my problem. I figured to vote for the Democrat, but if Trump wins, I win more money and so much more entertainment. Sadly, when the Democrat wins, The Trump Show gets cancelled and the GOP Senators will filibuster everything, which is a loss. Taking everything into consideration, I come out ahead with 4 more years of Trump. My tax accountant has satisfactorily proved that.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
If you want a re-do of 2016 I suggest you look to 2020 and try to figure out how the democrats could win this time.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot. You can't be an asshole loser who's always wrong because you're rich. You must have to tell yourself that a lot.
/snicker
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You aren't the only Trump voter I know who is bitter because they are diseased in mind and body. I, in contrast, am in perfect health. Never had flu. Never had anything. Passed that trait onto my children, now in their 30's and 40's.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot. You can't be an asshole loser who's always wrong because you're rich. You must have to tell yourself that a lot.
/snicker
Quote:http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58882&mid=10936
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, after a couple days of treating myself at home with non-scrip medicines and therapies: cough syrup(cold), postural drainage(pneumonia), deep-breathing(asthma), pursed-lip exhaling(COPD), and cupped-hand percussion(cystic fibrosis), 1hour each, 2x/day, my symptoms are 80% improved.
But I still intend to not catch anything else this year if I can at all help it. Having 'just' a flu took nearly a month out of my life. And this whole coronavirus thing is a good opportunity to perfect my anti-viral practices.
01#1093601
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME