Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[JLW]

If I were mistaken, I was mistaken. It didn't seem that way to me based on what I saw, but maybe I was.

See Nostra, it is not so hard to admit it when you may have been wrong.

Now you do the same.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

 

[jc456]

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

That was not what I wrote you idiot. You can;t admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

hly fk son. here is your post

QUOTE="Johnlaw, post: 23970190, member: 39715"]

If I were mistaken, I was mistaken. It didn't seem that way to me based on what I saw, but maybe I was.

See Nostra, it is not so hard to admit it when you may have been wrong.

Now you do the same.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.[/QUOTE]

 

[JLW]

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

That was not what I wrote you idiot. You can;t admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

hly fk son. here is your post

QUOTE="Johnlaw, post: 23970190, member: 39715"]

If I were mistaken, I was mistaken. It didn't seem that way to me based on what I saw, but maybe I was.

See Nostra, it is not so hard to admit it when you may have been wrong.

Now you do the same.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

[/QUOTE]
Another stupid fucking post that shows nothing,

 

[jc456]

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

how is it stupid? First I sort of agree, the fact that any senator wishes to go against the constitution is fking stupid. yet they're asking as are the schitt's team. so, has it been done before? add new witnesses that is. yes or no? can't answer cause it proves us right. too fking funny, thanks for the confirmation.

 

[JLW]

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

how is it stupid? First I sort of agree, the fact that any senator wishes to go against the constitution is fking stupid. yet they're asking as are the schitt's team. so, has it been done before? add new witnesses that is. yes or no? can't answer cause it proves us right. too fking funny, thanks for the confirmation.

Here read this: Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

Nostro's original point was since there was a House investigation that had witnesses, a subsequent Senate trial did not have to have witnesses. I told him this was the first time that a Senate impeachment trial had no witnesses.. He realized he was wrong, then changed the topic to "new witnesses" in which he is also wrong.

He then went off the deep end.

 

[jc456]

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

how is it stupid? First I sort of agree, the fact that any senator wishes to go against the constitution is fking stupid. yet they're asking as are the schitt's team. so, has it been done before? add new witnesses that is. yes or no? can't answer cause it proves us right. too fking funny, thanks for the confirmation.

Here read this: Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

son, the distinction you miss is additional witnesses. It's in all of my posts. witnesses embedded in the articles are not new witnesses. for fk sake.

 

[Nostra]

I will be happy to admit I am wrong, if I am ever wrong. I'm not in this thread.

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

You can't admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

In the post I quoted, Dummy.

 

[Nostra]

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

how is it stupid? First I sort of agree, the fact that any senator wishes to go against the constitution is fking stupid. yet they're asking as are the schitt's team. so, has it been done before? add new witnesses that is. yes or no? can't answer cause it proves us right. too fking funny, thanks for the confirmation.

Here read this: Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

Nostro's original point was since there was a House investigation that had witnesses, a subsequent Senate trial did not have to have witnesses. I told him this was the first time that a Senate impeachment trial had no witnesses.. He realized he was wrong, then changed the topic to "new witnesses" in which he is also wrong.

He then went off the deep end.

A string of lies by you.

 

[JLW]

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

nah, but thanks for showing your admission post was bullshit. So let's try again, has there ever been a new witness in a senate impeachment trial? it's either yes or no. no need for any caveat. Crickets from you proves him correct.

That is such a fucking stupid question. I have two morons tag teaming me. LOL

how is it stupid? First I sort of agree, the fact that any senator wishes to go against the constitution is fking stupid. yet they're asking as are the schitt's team. so, has it been done before? add new witnesses that is. yes or no? can't answer cause it proves us right. too fking funny, thanks for the confirmation.

Here read this: Yes, every other Senate impeachment has included witnesses

son, the distinction you miss is additional witnesses. It's in all of my posts. witnesses embedded in the articles are not new witnesses. for fk sake.

The Senate can call whoever they want as witnesses if they want to. They are not limited by the House witnesses. Show me where they can't.

 

[JLW]

Fair enough.

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

You can't admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

In the post I quoted, Dummy.

I see you can't link to the lie you made about me.

Prove where I am wrong about your position. You said the Senate does not need to call witnesses. I said this was the first time there would be an impeachment without witnesses, Show where I am wrong?

 

[Auld Phart]

The whining about witnesses is derailing the thread.

Drop it, get back to the topic

 

[Nostra]

now say he was correct. you can't dispute his post.

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

You can't admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

In the post I quoted, Dummy.

I see you can't link to the lie you made about me.

Prove where I am wrong about your position. You said the Senate does not need to call witnesses. I said this was the first time there would be an impeachment without witnesses, Show where I am wrong?

Been there, done that.
Run along, kid.

 

[jc456]

The whining about witnesses is derailing the thread.

Drop it, get back to the topic

isn't that the biggest part of what's happening in the senate trial now? how is that derailing? please.

 

[JLW]

Nah, I was right. He has opinion and that is fine.

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

You can't admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

In the post I quoted, Dummy.

I see you can't link to the lie you made about me.

Prove where I am wrong about your position. You said the Senate does not need to call witnesses. I said this was the first time there would be an impeachment without witnesses, Show where I am wrong?

Been there, done that.
Run along, kid.

 

[Cosmos]

The House Clowns had their witnesses. Didn't you see all the clips of their testimony in the House?

Why do you idiots keep lying that there were no witnesses?

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. My point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to grand jury testimoney. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

It would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a fuck." That would be a fair answer.

Like you said. The Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments. They just did that. And it looks like they've decided they've seen all the testimony they need to make a decision. Their purpose is to try a case and reach a decision, not conduct a multi-week or multi-month clown show for the House incompetents. They accomplished their purpose. Game over by tomorrow. Like you said.

 

[jc456]

More lies by you. It isn’t my opinion no new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial, it is a fact.

you are incapable of posting without lying.

You can't admit you were wrong and now are just making up lies. Where did I say that was your opinion?

In the post I quoted, Dummy.

I see you can't link to the lie you made about me.

Prove where I am wrong about your position. You said the Senate does not need to call witnesses. I said this was the first time there would be an impeachment without witnesses, Show where I am wrong?

Been there, done that.
Run along, kid.

View attachment 303689

seventeen witnesses testified. it was tried. now show where that isn't fair. let's go a different direction.

 

[Cosmos]

The idiot is on Wiki right now reading up on the Clinton trial, and finding out I caught him in another lie.

Your idiocy is unbelievable. I caught you in a lie and then you accuse me. What a moron. Admit you were wrong about Clinton, Dumbass. There were witnesses.

What was my lie? Be specific. Quote it, and point out the lie.

Watch this...........

Yeah, you went and modified your post. But you did prove my point that I was making that the Senate calls witnesses. You knew your dumbass was wrong, so you changed your position to new witnesses. Well I have news for you, the Senate can call who it wants as witnesses like in every trial. It should have called at least some witnesses. The whole trial was a sham. I know you guys are scared to death of Bolton. He knows the truth. You lemmings despise truth.

no they don't. they bring back witnesses that testified in the house. different. but hey, you aren't a big enough man to know that. we get it.

The point I was arguing with Nosepick was that the Senate always calls witnesses. He proved my point and he was wrong and now he won't admit his ignorance.

Yeah. If they have some unanswered questions. Sure. They don't need any more witnesses to vote on this case. I would have liked to see them delve further into the Biden crime family because that is central to the case, but perhaps that will surface elsewhere.

 

[JLW]

The House was the investigation phase and the Senate is the trial phase. Consider the Grand Jury analogy. The Grand Jury role analogous to the House role, then the Prosecution takes it to trial, They hear witnesses and take testimony in the grand jury room as well, however, if no witnesses show up at the trial the prosecution loses. The Senators should have heard at least one witness to give a veneer of credibility to the trial, then acquit, but they could not even muster that courage.

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. My point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to grand jury testimoney. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

It would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a fuck." That would be a fair answer.

Like you said. The Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments. They just did that. And it looks like they've decided they've seen all the testimony they need to make a decision. Their purpose is to try a case and reach a decision, not conduct a multi-week or multi-month clown show for the House incompetents. They accomplished their purpose. Game over by tomorrow. Like you said.

Exactly. Finally someone who understands the role of the Senate. It is over or rather appears to be over. Doesn't make it right how they conducted the trial though.

 

[jc456]

Witnesses did show up at the trial. They played their testimony.

Your lies have been exposed.

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. My point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to grand jury testimoney. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

It would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a fuck." That would be a fair answer.

Like you said. The Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments. They just did that. And it looks like they've decided they've seen all the testimony they need to make a decision. Their purpose is to try a case and reach a decision, not conduct a multi-week or multi-month clown show for the House incompetents. They accomplished their purpose. Game over by tomorrow. Like you said.

Exactly. Finally someone who understands the role of the Senate. It is over. Doesn't make it right how they conducted the trial though.

17 witnesses were called, you're just lying yet again.

 

[JLW]

I don't mean to insult you, but the concepts I am explaining to you are way above your comprehension level. I won't waste of my time on you. It is like talking to a first grader.

You lies get exposed and the best you can come up with is "I'm way smarter than you"?

Give it up, liar. There were witnesses.

You are missing my point. My point is yes the House heard witnesses, but now we are in the trial stage. The House took what is analogous to grand jury testimoney. Now it is up the Senate to try the case. Your just do not understand the House role and the Senate role. The Senate trial was a sham. First time EVER the Senate held an Impeachment trial without witnesses.

It would have been far more honest of you to write: "I know the Senate should call witnesses, but I don't give a fuck." That would be a fair answer.

Like you said. The Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments. They just did that. And it looks like they've decided they've seen all the testimony they need to make a decision. Their purpose is to try a case and reach a decision, not conduct a multi-week or multi-month clown show for the House incompetents. They accomplished their purpose. Game over by tomorrow. Like you said.

Exactly. Finally someone who understands the role of the Senate. It is over. Doesn't make it right how they conducted the trial though.

17 witnesses were called, you're just lying yet again.

Hey moron, besides missing my point entirely, can't you read the moderator's warning.