M
Maximus1
Guest
She isn’t a lawyer. The problem was not the answer,. It was the unethical question.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well, you know , Republicans shouldn’t have been allowed to ask questions or call witnesses. They’ll mess up the coup.She isn’t a lawyer. The problem was not the answer,. It was the unethical question.
M
Maximus1
Guest
When they ask deceptive/ unethical questions you can be assured that tight reigns are neccessary
lol. The entire Schiff led charade was operated unethically and dishonestly. There is nothing ethical about the three year coup attempt.When they ask deceptive/ unethical questions you can be assured that tight reigns are neccessary
By the way , his two questions were ethical, straightforward, and to the point.
Last edited:
Well, if you think witnesses who have no veto add are good witnesses, okay. Frankly, I think they were a waste of time, but far be it from me to try to limit the “witnesses “ Schiff and his cronies wanted to call. I’ll leave that crooked tactic to them.You won’t see witnesses much better than they were. This generalized discussion of evidence is great political scoff, but pretty meaningless.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The impeachment inquiry is only weeks old. When you speak of a three year coup attempt you forfeit whatever credibility you have left.There is nothing ethical about the three year coup attempt.
M
Maximus1
Guest
This was a Constitutional proceeding and lawful, but Trumpism seems not to know the law.
And by the way his questions would be unethical in every single courtroom in the land. The witnesses were not qualified as experts and were incompetent to answer questions calling for a legal opinion.
The questioners in a courtroom would be charged with knowing that before they spoke. Ask, and they subject themselves to discipline and a fine for the mistrial if sought.
But who would expect Trumpism to know that or care. THAT MOST UNETHICAL QUESTION BECAME TRUMPISMS FAVORITE. It is the very essence of the lawlessness of Trumpism that finds you in the dark.
And by the way his questions would be unethical in every single courtroom in the land. The witnesses were not qualified as experts and were incompetent to answer questions calling for a legal opinion.
The questioners in a courtroom would be charged with knowing that before they spoke. Ask, and they subject themselves to discipline and a fine for the mistrial if sought.
But who would expect Trumpism to know that or care. THAT MOST UNETHICAL QUESTION BECAME TRUMPISMS FAVORITE. It is the very essence of the lawlessness of Trumpism that finds you in the dark.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Those who can witness him shoot someone on 5th Ave and still vote for him would be expected to see it a waste. I believe this.
M
Maximus1
Guest
There is no attempt at credibility. Only contempt.
lol. I’m really not affected by your view of my credibility. It isn’t mine that matters. Schiff is the one who lacks any credibility. He has lied countless times during this charade and in its impeachment predecessor, Russia collusion.The impeachment inquiry is only weeks old. When you speak of a three year coup attempt you forfeit whatever credibility you have left.
Oh, I didn’t say the proceeding isn’t lawful. Schiff and his cronies have simply corrupted and slimed the law.This was a Constitutional proceeding and lawful, but Trumpism seems not to know the law.
It isn’t a courtroom. You can tell that by the way Schiff openly acts to hide evidence and protect Eric Ciaramella.And by the way his questions would be unethical in every single courtroom in the land.
Of course not. They didn’t know anything at all.The witnesses were not qualified as experts and were incompetent to answer questions calling for a legal opinion.
The most hated questions by the Trump haters who have wanted and planned to overturn the 2016 election since the day after because it reveals the truth about this phony investigation.But who would expect Trumpism to know that or care. THAT MOST UNETHICAL QUESTION BECAME TRUMPISMS FAVORITE. It is the very essence of the lawlessness of Trumpism that finds you in the dark.
Attacking my credibility. Ooh, I’m so offended.There is no attempt at credibility. Only contempt.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
We can agree you are not. That’s my point
M
Maximus1
Guest
Let’s face it, how well can any attorney do trying to proove anything to people who would still vote for Trump if he shot someone on 5th Ave?
In that case you lost the case in jury selection
In that case you lost the case in jury selection
M
Maximus1
Guest
Corrupted and slimed?
Every single witness came from Trump’s own administration. They ranged from combat vets to his own appointments of million dollar contributors. The charge is absurd.
And ," it isn’t in a courtroom," is intended to proove what?" THAT the unethical question is exploitable via unethical men?
The reason the question would not even be permitted to be asked I a courtroom is the danger of people hearing the question and whatever the answer is. What’s dangerous about that? Uniformly the courts fear that a juror might actually decide the case on it. The fear is confusion( of people giving weight to the answer when the answer by law is 0% competent.).
The problem asking is the foreknowledge of deceiving the jury. By simply asking. Emphasizing the answer is a full blown fraud. That is the Trumpist way.
Trump gives the justification for everyone to righteously employ the unethical. His victimhood. " Now go get them boys, unlawful is ok to save me." As long as he is in office he will get bolder defying the law, because his minions give him immunity. And like a crook, he sees that as a green light to abandon the law more fully. Supporting anything no matter what eventually lead to abandonment of 230 years of values
Every single witness came from Trump’s own administration. They ranged from combat vets to his own appointments of million dollar contributors. The charge is absurd.
And ," it isn’t in a courtroom," is intended to proove what?" THAT the unethical question is exploitable via unethical men?
The reason the question would not even be permitted to be asked I a courtroom is the danger of people hearing the question and whatever the answer is. What’s dangerous about that? Uniformly the courts fear that a juror might actually decide the case on it. The fear is confusion( of people giving weight to the answer when the answer by law is 0% competent.).
The problem asking is the foreknowledge of deceiving the jury. By simply asking. Emphasizing the answer is a full blown fraud. That is the Trumpist way.
Trump gives the justification for everyone to righteously employ the unethical. His victimhood. " Now go get them boys, unlawful is ok to save me." As long as he is in office he will get bolder defying the law, because his minions give him immunity. And like a crook, he sees that as a green light to abandon the law more fully. Supporting anything no matter what eventually lead to abandonment of 230 years of values
Last edited:
And in the same way, how can the lack of any wrongdoing convince those who have been determined since the day after to overturn and undermine a duly elected president.Let’s face it, how well can any attorney do trying to proove anything to people who would still vote for Trump if he shot someone on 5th Ave?
In that case you lost the case in jury selection
I didn’t know Schiff was part of the administration.Corrupted and slimed?
That you say the questions were unethical doesn’t make it so. In fact, it adds credibility to the question.And ," it isn’t in a courtroom," is intended to proove what?" THAT the unethical question is exploitable via unethical men?
We are going round and round. I am willing to let the Senate slap this farce down.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yes,The whistleblowers text saying the coup has begun,along with Lisa Page ,Stroek etc.To anyone who denies the factual reality of what’s been going on for three years,I’d say take your political blinders off.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I am qualified to render the expert legal opinion by education and experience. The witnesses were not. Emphasis on their answers is symptomatic of people willing to justify evil as necessary for the greater good. This is the overwhelming feature of Trump’s presidency for Catholics, who I do not expect to change.
Last edited:
Appeal to authority fallacy.I am qualified to render the expert legal opinion by education and experience.
I wasn’t attempting to justify progressivism in general or Schiff in particular.Emphasis on their answers is symptomatic of people willing to justify evil as necessary
- Status
- Not open for further replies.