Impartiality in the Senate

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No cover-up ever works. Republican Senators might vote to hide witnesses, but they can't stop them from talking.

Well let them talk! Bolton could have allowed himself to be interviewed on the news shows. He hasn't. And he stated the call was cordial and warm. You can't have a witness swinging back and forth with a different story every time. And the House could have put forth the subpoena and worked it through the courts. They didn't

And about no time to do so? They sat on the Articles of Impeachment for 3 weeks before even sending them. Do you know who long it took the Supreme Court to hear and decide on the Bush--Gore election??? 3 weeks too. Sorry but they have no excuse. They obviously failed to make their case in a reasonable fashion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: hislegacy
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well let them talk! Bolton could have allowed himself to be interviewed on the news shows. He hasn't.


That's what I am thinking as well. So why hasn't he then? It's not like he hasn't done things like that in the past.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,640
13,925
Broken Arrow, OK
✟688,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My opinion: The house managers have made some key mistakes, the most prevalent is what I call trial by sound bite. Saying the same sound bite over and over hoping it lends some type of credence to their goals.

In listening to Mr, Schiff this afternoon, he repeated “Fair Trial” numerous times over a five minute period. The same with Mr. Nadler and his cover up statements.

this style is similar to Mrs Pelosi’s “no one is above the law” byline.

Combine that with the repeated assertions that their evidence was uncontested, repeating it in the middle of it being contested. I think people are seeing it.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
Bolton-Testimony-by-Kevin-Siers-The-Charlotte-Observer-NC-.jpg


Impartiality in the Senate


Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has now stated publicly that the Trump's White House lawyer who represented him in the Impeachment Trial, Pat Cipollone, was also present when this President instructed them to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens!

By not
disclosing this obvious conflict of interest, Cipollone will now have to explain as to how he can be his client's lawyer and the participant in a potential violation of the election laws at the same time - in a plot that Bolton has characterized as a "drug deal!

Lawyer/client
confidentiality when one's legal council is present when an illegal activity is being planned - both have placed themselves in legal jeopardy!

Like President Trump, Pat Cipollone has a vested interest in ensuring that Bolton didn't testify before the Senate, under oath, because he could place both himself and his client at a meeting where an illegal activity was being planned!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
My opinion: The house managers have made some key mistakes, the most prevalent is what I call trial by sound bite. Saying the same sound bite over and over hoping it lends some type of credence to their goals.
Totally agree. How they could ever consider their way of presenting their material wouldn't have been extremely offensive is mind boggling. To me it came across as beating people up. It almost seemed like some type of torture technique to make the Senators hear the same bites ad nauseam using up nearly their whole 24 hours. They should have considered the law of diminishing returns the more you put into something eventually crosses the line as to be counter productive.

I suppose it was done to think by having more air time, hour after hour after hour there would always be new people tuning in via television. That's a valid consideration to a point but over all it produced an extremely oppressed feeling in the chamber. Hard to be persuasive or to appeal to good will by using such techniques.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
Totally agree. How they could ever consider their way of presenting their material wouldn't have been extremely offensive is mind boggling. To me it came across as beating people up. It almost seemed like some type of torture technique to make the Senators hear the same bites ad nauseam using up nearly their whole 24 hours. They should have considered the law of diminishing returns the more you put into something eventually crosses the line as to be counter productive.

I suppose it was done to think by having more air time, hour after hour after hour there would always be new people tuning in via television. That's a valid consideration to a point but over all it produced an extremely oppressed feeling in the chamber. Hard to be persuasive or to appeal to good will by using such techniques.
With all due respect, it was Majority Leader McConnell and the Republicans who decided upon this"Boring" format, not the Democrats! - it was all part of their strategy to frustrate the attention span of the American public!

In fact McConnell had to be talked out of squeezing opening arguments to 2, 12 hour days where much of the presentations would have occurred during the middle of the night - which was exactly what they wanted!
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
With all due respect, it was Majority Leader McConnell and the Republicans who decided upon this"Boring" format, not the Democrats! - it was all part of their strategy to frustrate the attention span of the American public!

Oh so you're going from the angle that McConnell allowed this on purpose knowing the Dems would be silly to use up all such time in turn which would frustrate viewers. Yeah. So why did the Democrats walk into it.

They still could have used up a measure of their time for the first day and used a measure in the second. And it doesn't answer the question why the repetition a thousand million times.....nobody was forcing them to do that. All in all a pretty counter productive thing to do.

Of course the mainstream media was heralding their presentation as brilliant but they know it wasn't. They know it was most vexing to hear the same points and the same bites repeated in the ad nauseam fashion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hislegacy
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Very true. The very fact that they're campaigning for his job is a direct conflict of interest where they might not show impartiality. Every other human being can do that IF you belong to their political party but if not YOU CAN'T. So obviously an attempt to stack the deck wherever they go and whatever they do.

THEY WON'T offer the same consideration to the President where he can gain from seeing Biden investigated and have it still not have it be for right legal reasons.

Turns out, it's not just abuse of power. It's also a crime. Even if one claims to have done it for all the right motives. And even if the impeachment trial covers it up, there's still a criminal liability remaining. Calling for investigations without withholding funds, isn't a crime at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That would leave only 3 or 4 Republicans on the jury and all the rest would have to recuse.
And only 1 Democratic left on the jury and the rest would have to recuse.

It's rather like the justices on the SCourt, we have to trust that they will put their partisanship aside and put the Constitution and the laws of land first.

If lifetime appointed Supreme Court Justices are not insulated from acting solely on political bias, and a number of them are not, why would we ever expect elected Congresspersons to be? Unless the citizenry started to vote based upon putting the Constitution and the laws of the land first why would we ever expect the results of the voting to give us people that did that?
 
Upvote 0