Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Save it. She was treated with kid gloves and there was no evidence against him. Google all you want. What the internet says is irrelevant and hardly sacrosanct. Who knows what are lies or truth there, both against her or him. You assume what you want. produce the evidence he committed the crime if you have it. Afraid to fly, botched lie detector, its all
Alarming how bad it looks, but hey … you all believe her so there is that…open and shut right?

None of that, including her name, had to be public but it was. Someone wanted it public.

You really need to call off the dogs on your excuses for denying presumption of innocence. Not a trial, just a confirmation hearing, yada yada. Pathetic really.
 
Last edited:
Woodyl57 said:
Save it.
Click to expand...
Normally I ignore posts in which I am addressed in imperative voice, but I will make an exception here.
Woodyl57 said:
She was treated with kid gloves
Click to expand...
By some. And treated badly by others.
Woodyl57 said:
What the internet says is irrelevant and hardly sacrosanct.
Click to expand...
It provides information that can fill in gaps in awareness of treatment that fell short.
Woodyl57 said:
You assume what you want
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
Woodyl57 said:
Yes, you are right. No one…NO ONE would dare look into the background or dig up the past of the accuser. Did she take advantage of that? Who knows. Those against Kavanaugh hid behind feminism and shaming anyone try to seek the truth.
Click to expand...
My take on Kavanaugh is that there was an awful lot of smoke, and an awful lot of denials.

That man was in a lot of situations that seem to be remembered by other people as being problematic. Add to that the accusations of drunkenness, his denials rang hollow.

I would have preferred someone with a lot less baggage. Because of the situations from his past, his hearing was about his personal actions, not his jurisprudence.

Just compare his life to RBG. She has the stature to be on the court.
 
tomarin said:
Prime ministers don’t serve out fixed terms, so they just keep on going along until they become so unpopular that they get voted out of office by their party members in Parliament, or their party loses their majority to the other party in a general election, whichever comes first. Whereas our president is the head of a distinct branch that is separate from the legislature, yet is beholden to that legislature according to the system of checks and balances. He can be voted out of office, or serve out two terms, or (in extreme case) be impeached and removed from office
Click to expand...
Well yes, I think that’s all common knowledge. I was pointing out one disadvantage of the US executive presidency: that only in an extreme case can he be removed between elections, be he ever so incompetent. We both acknowledge that to be the case; I am suggesting it is a disadvantage.
 
I understand where you are coming from. I think many people including myself think the goal of that hearing was to drudge up as much as they could, true or not, to taint the nomination and any rulings they he made they didn’t like. It obviously worked for many people. The lawyers arguing against him even said part of the motivations for the accusation was to put an * next to any abortion decisions he made (Not saying this Katz lawyer was speaking for Ford when she said this though I personally believe its likely).

You mention RBG, even she lamented the current process and commented on her confirmation and Scalia’s as being almost entirely approved. We see declines in bipartisan support for Kagan and Sotomeyer but they did get somewhere around 20% Republican support. Gorsuch got 3 Dem votes, Kavanaugh got 1 and the many promises not to confirm were made before they were even nominated.

In my opinion Kavanaugh had to be confirmed. Doesn’t matter what you believe happened decades ago, you have to have some proof. It isn’t about him individually. Its about throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what sticks. I believe that same thing is going on now in Congress and has been for 3 years.

I respect your disagreements, but I do simply disagree. I don’t see minds being changed on Kavanaugh because, again, there is no way to definitively prove either way what happened 30 years ago.
 
I think the Ds will lose over this

and what is oven overlooked, not sure why… is the fact that Schiff is conflicted, as he is both witness and “prosecutor”
 
Last edited:
fedup19 said:
and what is oven overlooked, not sure why… is the fact that Schiff is conflicted, as he is both witness and “prosecutor”
Click to expand...
It is not overlooked by Rs, just the Ds and most of media. The Ds just appoint a different person to run the show and their odds of making their case would improve just on that, I still don’t think they have a case, but having Schiff run it is not smart.
 
Woodyl57 said:
I respect your disagreements, but I do simply disagree. I don’t see minds being changed on Kavanaugh because, again, there is no way to definitively prove either way what happened 30 years ago
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that the accusations from 30 years ago can’t be proven.

My comment about RBG was because, while I disagree with a lot of her views and a lot of her rulings, I absolutely admire her as a person.

And that’s my point. I’d really like to have Justices that have great legal minds AND are upstanding people beyond reproach. I wonder if that is too much to ask for now?

To your point about bipartisanship, I’m not sure that any of the Justices you mentioned will be remembered in history as great Justices. Maybe that’s why it was partisan. Are the great bipartisan legal minds no longer out there?
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
To your point about bipartisanship, I’m not sure that any of the Justices you mentioned will be remembered in history as great Justices. Maybe that’s why it was partisan. Are the great bipartisan legal minds no longer out there?
Click to expand...
This could be true and this is possibly a good reason for the partisanship of the recent votes. Perspective I hadn’t considered. It could also be the increasingly partisan nature of society tight now, or some of both.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Woodyl57:
NO ONE would dare look into the background or dig up the past of the accuser.
Click to expand...
That is hardly the case. You can dispel that false notion in a matter of second by googling the accusers name.
Click to expand...
Before or after she expunged everything about herself from her social media accounts and various other websites?
 
I suppose you knew her before she turned herself into a digital non-person?

Otherwise, how would you know that she was impeccable before she expunged all traces of herself? The question of why she would do that clearly argues against your point. What motive would she have to delete al social media accounts if her background wasn’t problematic?
 
Last edited:
no kidding!

I don’t know why the Rs let the Ds get away with SO much. HRC got away with endangering US security, giving US classified info to essnetially the whole world…

DC is one disgusting place
 
Last edited:
fj2020 said:
Well, Thank God Trump Got A Note From His Doctor So He Doesn’t Have To Put Up With This Witch Hunt Anymore!
Click to expand...
I was prompted by your post to look up the Salem Witch Trials on Wikipedia.

It is interesting…
A person could be indicted …for making an unlawful covenant with the Devil. Once indicted, the defendant went to trial, sometimes on the same day, …

Much, but not all, of the evidence used against the accused, was spectral evidence or the testimony of the afflicted who claimed to see the apparition or the shape of the person who was allegedly afflicting them. The theological dispute that ensued about the use of this evidence was based on whether a person had to give permission to the Devil for his/her shape to be used to afflict. Opponents claimed that the Devil was able to use anyone’s shape to afflict people, but the Court contended that the Devil could not use a person’s shape without that person’s permission; therefore, when the afflicted claimed to see the apparition of a specific person, that was accepted as evidence that the accused had been complicit with the Devil.

Cotton Mather’s The Wonders of the Invisible World was written with the purpose to show how careful the court was in managing the trials. Unfortunately the work did not get released until after the trials had already ended.
Click to expand...
Now replace the word ‘Devil’ with Russia in the text and you get a pretty accurate depiction of what is going on right at the moment.
A person [Trump] could be indicted …for making an unlawful covenant with the Russians. Once indicted, the defendant went to trial, on the same day [that he was sworn into office as president], …

Much, but not all, of the evidence used against the accused, was spectral evidence or the secret testimony of the afflicted who claimed to see the apparition or the shape of the person who was allegedly afflicting them. The theological dispute that ensued about the use of this evidence was based on whether a person had to give permission to the Russians for his/her shape to be used to afflict. Opponents claimed that the Russians were able to use the colluder’s shape to afflict people, but the Court contended that the Russians could not use a person’s shape without that person’s permission; therefore, when the whistleblower claimed to see the apparition of a specific person, that was accepted as evidence that the accused had been colluding with the Russians.

Adam Schiff’s Secret Impeachment Trial was contrived with the purpose to show how careful Congress was in managing the trial. Unfortunately the work will not get released until after the trial has ended.
Click to expand...
 
fedup19 said:
I think the Ds will lose over this

and what is oven overlooked, not sure why… is the fact that Schiff is conflicted, as he is both witness and “prosecutor”
Click to expand...
Neither is Joe Biden conflicted when it comes to Hunter’s dealings in Ukraine, apparently. He claimed the hold on the $1B loan guarantee was because of the corruption of the prosecutor looking into Burisma, that it had nothing to do with Hunter, and that Burisma wasn’t a corrupt company, despite that “then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gave a speech imploring Ukrainian prosecutors to do more to bring Zlochevsky [oligarch and owner of Burisma] to justice, according to published reports at the time.”

And yet…

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...eeks-joe-biden-got-ukrainian-prosecutor-fired
 
I don’t see the link to anything illegal. Communication existed. I guess that is established. But this type of communication is being handled via proper channels. At best, Burisma seems to be using their asset for access. Maybe that is why they paid. That is sort of the rule in hiring rather than an anomaly. Privilege is real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top