subgenius wrote:“House Democrats’ case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place, but also so weak that the Senate needs to go fishing. If the existing case is strong, there’s no need for the judge and the jury to re-open the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place.”
The case is strong enough as it is. It's just you can get a fuller picture of what has happened if implicated parties were questioned and relevant documents were turned over. The thing is the Trump admin is refusing to allow documents to be turned over and relevant witnesses to testify. Since you're not suggesting they be allowed to do this in the house, the argument seems to be, "If Trump refuses to cooperate, then there's nothing there."
subgenius wrote:“House Democrats’ case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place, but also so weak that the Senate needs to go fishing. If the existing case is strong, there’s no need for the judge and the jury to re-open the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place.”
The case is strong enough as it is. It's just you can get a fuller picture of what has happened if implicated parties were questioned and relevant documents were turned over. The thing is the Trump admin is refusing to allow documents to be turned over and relevant witnesses to testify. Since you're not suggesting they be allowed to do this in the house, the argument seems to be, "If Trump refuses to cooperate, then there's nothing there."
Cool how you open with "its strong enough" but quickly follow with "but its really not strong enough ". kewl
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EA thinks its best to look for the gun at the sentencing instead of during the trial.....or some other version of stoop-ed.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote: Cool how you open with "its strong enough" but quickly follow with "but its really not strong enough ". kewl
Yeah, I know reading is a lifelong struggle for you. It's nice to know more, but not necessary. If there were live footage of Nicole Simpson being murdered, I sure wouldn't want to give the defense unilateral authority to suppress the release of that video in a trial, but I don't think seeing that video is necessary to know if OJ is guilty.
subgenius wrote:EAllusion thinks its best to look for the gun at the sentencing instead of during the trial.....or some other version of stoop-ed.
The sneaky cool thing about this post is your naïve belief that this kind of dishonesty won't be ever be weaponized by a Democrat seizing power because you have faith that Democrats by nature aren't nearly as bad as Republicans. So this kind of moment to moment ends justify the means approach is safe. It's a mistaken belief.
And I know you think you're just fighting fire with fire. But, really, I think you know you're not.
Those are some crazy, weird texts. This Robert Hyde guy is a real P.O.S. It boggles my mind that anyone can look at this cast of characters on team Trump and come to the conclusion that these are the good guys. If this was a fictional movie everyone would complain that the President and the cronies working for him are too one-dimensional in their evilness. They need more nuance. Maybe those text messages were perfectly innocent. The scariest thing in all of this, on the off chance that there was overwhelming evidence that Trump ordered a hit on the ambassador (to be clear, I'm not saying there is or he did) the Republicans in congress would defend his right to do so. Does anyone really think they wouldn't?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Those are some crazy, weird texts. This Robert Hyde guy is a real P.O.S. It boggles my mind that anyone can look at this cast of characters on team Trump and come to the conclusion that these are the good guys. If this was a fictional movie everyone would complain that the President and the cronies working for him are too one-dimensional in their evilness. They need more nuance. Maybe those text messages were perfectly innocent. The scariest thing in all of this, on the off chance that there was overwhelming evidence that Trump ordered a hit on the ambassador (to be clear, I'm not saying there is or he did) the Republicans in congress would defend his right to do so. Does anyone really think they wouldn't?
I watched The Irishman last week. The whole admin strikes me as a mafia operation (an extremely damned stupid mafia operation).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Any of you guys want to start back up the 911 buildings conspiracy again now that you are all on the level of . being conspiracy nuts.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
mikwut wrote:Any of you guys want to start back up the 911 buildings conspiracy again now that you are all on the level of . being conspiracy nuts.
mikwut
It’s fascinating to me how people like yourself and subs can get into lunatic conspiracy theories like 9/11 trutherism or Clinton Kill List stuff, but when presented with overwhelming evidence of an actual malicious conspiracy, think yourself wise for saying, “Doesn’t look like anything to me.”
I don’t know if it’s contrarianism, a need to feel part of some higher mysteries, or what, but it is super interesting.
mikwut wrote:Any of you guys want to start back up the 911 buildings conspiracy again now that you are all on the level of . being conspiracy nuts.
mikwut
It’s fascinating to me how people like yourself and subs can get into lunatic conspiracy theories like 9/11 trutherism or Clinton Kill List stuff, but when presented with overwhelming evidence of an actual malicious conspiracy, think yourself wise for saying, “Doesn’t look like anything to me.”
I don’t know if it’s contrarianism, a need to feel part of some higher mysteries, or what, but it is super interesting.
Mikwut,
Did you not read those texts?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.