[Lord Dave]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

How could they cast a not guilty vote?  Same logic applies.

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

As soon as Biden launches his official campaign for President of the United States.

Please notify us when that happens.

Not sure if you're serious or just playing dumb here.

[totallackey]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

How could they cast a not guilty vote?  Same logic applies.

The same logic is that if a trial is deemed to be unfair in the United States, the vote should be to acquit.

You do not vote to convict the defendant in an unfair trial.

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

As soon as Biden launches his official campaign for President of the United States.

Please notify us when that happens.

Not sure if you're serious or just playing dumb here.

Seriously....Joe Biden is a legitimate candidate?

Even a rigged caucus thinks this is a ludicrous idea.

Eerily enough, so does his former boss...

[Rama Set]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

[totallackey]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

[Rama Set]

Is that your expectation or is that the codified expectation? If the former, it’s irrelevant, if it’s the later I’d like to read your source to see how badly you misinterpreted it.

[Lord Dave]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup. 

[totallackey]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup.

Now claiming a mistrial is an option for Senators in an impeachment proceeding...

LOL!

Please write more and immediately contact Chief Justice Roberts and inform him of his failure to offer this option when instructing the Senators prior to issuing their verdicts...

[Lord Dave]

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup.

Now claiming a mistrial is an option for Senators in an impeachment proceeding...

LOL!

Please write more and immediately contact Chief Justice Robert's and inform him of his failure to offer this option when instructing the Senators prior to issuing their verdicts...

The judge rules it so

[totallackey]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

[Lord Dave]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides. 

[totallackey]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?
[/quote]

[Lord Dave]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

[totallackey]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

[Lord Dave]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

[totallackey]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Look, dems wanting a fair trial, not getting it...yet voting guilty anyway...truly shows hypocrisy.

Voting to acquit was the only sane choice.

It wasn't a fair process, let alone a fair trial.

[Lord Dave]

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Look, dems wanting a fair trial, not getting it...yet voting guilty anyway...truly shows hypocrisy.

Voting to acquit was the only sane choice.

It wasn't a fair process, let alone a fair trial.

Hey, when ya can't play fair, play by the rules.
And the rules were clear: Republicans must vote to aquit.  Dems must vote guilty.

[Pete Svarrior]

Guys, you don't need to quote the entire thread every time you respond. If you're posting 2 sentences, just don't quote.

[Lord Dave]

Trump doesn't let anything go.  Why should we?

[totallackey]

Guys, you don't need to quote the entire thread every time you respond. If you're posting 2 sentences, just don't quote.

Sorry Pete.

I will keep that in mind.

I was trying to avoid the charge (as I have been in the past) I was altering a quote.

[honk]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542

The draining of the swamp continues.

(the very next day) Oh, wow, I guess I spoke too soon:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-matters-interest-trump-including-stone-sentencing-n1135231

This is blatant corruption. How anybody can be okay with this is beyond me.