Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

ZERO.. every review is absolute fact, sessions I had and mostly enjoyed, LOL.. if you bothered to read them it would be obvious.. I couldn't make this shit up, y'all can't stop talking about the Pregnant Black Chick. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You made this up. You didn’t attend this Pro Am in Iowa and nowhere does it say Ford outdrove a PGA player. Because he didn’t play with one. Nothing you post should be believed. The link you posted:


http://amp.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/pr...ng-gerald-ford

You made this up. You didn’t attend this Pro Am in Iowa and nowhere does it say Ford outdrove a PGA player. Because he didn’t play with one. Nothing you post should be believed. The link you posted:


http://amp.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/pr...ng-gerald-ford Originally Posted by bambino

Bambi, please stop with the obsession.. seek medical attention. I peeked here, because I knew you were stalking me, and would slander me, LOL... I thought it would be "Tran fucks preggos", LOL.

you are still sore over that PGA debate.. I forgot all about it. and you still don't understand what I said, so let me try one more time.

I never said I went to that Tournament.. I posted the link because it gave clarity on the idea that Ford could still drive a golf ball well, into his old age. I said I attended the Colonial Golf Tournament and witnessed in person, that Ford outdrove a couple of Pros.. I further stipulated that it was on a Par 5, during the Pro-Am, and the Pros very well may have hit a 3 or 4 wood off the tee, which could account for the fact that Ford distanced them by 20 yards.

get help, Bambi.. you have worried over this for nearly 9 months?

show me on the Doll where I hurt you, LOL

your argument is as stupid as the last one, exactly the same. the analogy is Horseshit. nobody ransacked Trump.. he refused to let Witnesses testify, the House went with what they had, and impeached.. meaning, they are asking the Senate to get to the truth, where it Constitutionally belongs. have your brains been skull-fucked out of existence? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Where does it hurt? (Points to head.) Nobody skull-fucked me, asshole. Your imperviousness to logic is giving me a headache!

My analogy is spot on. Trump is merely asserting the same rights to protect his private deliberations from unreasonable disclosure as the Fourth Amendment affords you against unreasonable search and seizure. Your demand that the police obtain a warrant before searching your home isn't a crime - to the contrary, it stops the popo from committing one!

By the same token, trump's assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense; it merely forces the House to go the legal route and persuade a majority of the 9 judges on the SCOTUS that Congress' inquiry is legitimate and outweighs the well-established rights of the executive to keep sensitive conversations privileged and private.

It is sheer arrogance for dim-retards in the House to think they are entitled to see whatever documents they ask for and hear from any member of the White House they feel like questioning - without any check on their oversight authority.

As the WSJ put it in my post #140, that would essentially mean the POTUS works for the Congress and we might as well let Congress choose our Presidents. Of course, any 7th-grade civics student knows better than that! But not chungy! When it comes to the Constitution, his brains have been skull-fucked!

Did you look up the meaning of CO-EQUAL yet?

trump's assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense; Originally Posted by lustylad

I never said it was, and he is not charged with that. Trump did not turn over anything, or allow any Witness to testify. he can not legitimately invoke Executive privilege in the manner he tried, which is why he will be impeached tonight.

you can post your logic all you want, but reasonable minds see the overt and underlying fraud inherent in your presentation.

I never said it was, and he is not charged with that. Trump did not turn over anything, or allow any Witness to testify. he can not legitimately invoke Executive privilege in the manner he tried, which is why he will be impeached tonight.

you can post your logic all you want, but reasonable minds see the overt and underlying fraud inherent in your presentation. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Hahahaha... "reasonable minds" don't think and scheme about impeaching a President before he is even sworn in - which is what dim-retards have been doing from Day 1.

Look, Trump is being charged in an Article of Impeachment with obstructing Congress. All he did was assert his established right to let the Courts determine the legitimacy and scope of Congress' inquiry. It doesn't fucking matter if he declined to turn over 10% or 100% of what Congress wants - either way he is merely asserting the chief executive's rights under the Constitution. Unbelievably, the dim-retards are calling that an impeachable offense!

How would you feel if the police said forcing them to get a warrant before they can search your home proves you are a "fraud"? That's your argument.

Sorry chungy but your "logic" ain't making it. Did you look up the meaning of CO-EQUAL yet?

How would you feel if the police said forcing them to get a warrant before they can search your home proves you are a "fraud"? That's your argument. Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm going to try one more time, I've already wasted a lot, LOL..

that is not my argument, because the analogy doesn't work. but I'll play along this time, for ease of understanding.

I force the Cops to get a warrant.. that doesn't mean they can't go to the DA and say "We smelled something at Chung's door, it might have been Reefer".. DA says, "ok, let me see what I can find, I'll ask his neighbors if they have seen Blunts in his yard.. if so, we can have those neighbors testify before a Grand Jury, if the evidence warrants, then go to a full trial"..

you might not like the DA's stance, but he can do as described. it does you no good to whine and say "the Cops have been after me since 2016, I heard them say they wanted to jail me for SOMETHING"..

I'm going to try one more time, I've already wasted a lot, LOL..

that is not my argument, because the analogy doesn't work. but I'll play along this time, for ease of understanding.

I force the Cops to get a warrant.. that doesn't mean they can't go to the DA and say "We smelled something at Chung's door, it might have been Reefer".. DA says, "ok, let me see what I can find, I'll ask his neighbors if they have seen Blunts in his yard.. if so, we can have those neighbors testify before a Grand Jury, if the evidence warrants, then go to a full trial"..

you might not like the DA's stance, but he can do as described. it does you no good to whine and say "the Cops have been after me since 2016, I heard them say they wanted to jail me for SOMETHING".. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

bizarre

It's laughable that the Dims insist that the impeachment is a "political not criminal trial" then bring all these criminal trial arguments into the mix.

Just like the Dims who INSIST that the Republicans be IMPARTIAL jurors. Forget what happened in the House and the Dims changed the rules and voted partisanly. Then the Dims bitch that not enough witnesses testified and the articles of impeachment are too narrow. It's Mitch's job to fix this! Hey Mitch, we provided the rope, it's up to you to tie the noose...

I force the Cops to get a warrant.. that doesn't mean they can't go to the DA and say "We smelled something at Chung's door, it might have been Reefer".. DA says, "ok, let me see what I can find, I'll ask his neighbors if they have seen Blunts in his yard.. if so, we can have those neighbors testify before a Grand Jury, if the evidence warrants, then go to a full trial"..

you might not like the DA's stance, but he can do as described. it does you no good to whine and say "the Cops have been after me since 2016, I heard them say they wanted to jail me for SOMETHING".. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Your logic is still way off. The DA in your example is merely doing the yeoman's work of establishing probable cause so he can obtain the warrant before searching your home. What the cops smelled and what the neighbors saw may be enough to persuade a judge to issue the warrant.

The House is impeaching Trump for the mere act of requiring them to get a warrant. That's like the cops arresting you for refusing to let them invade your home without legal grounds to do so.

It's not a crime to assert your Fourth Amendment rights. And it's not an impeachable offense for a POTUS to assert executive privilege either. If you think trump is abusing it, then you should be eager to argue your case in front of the SCOTUS. The idea that Congress should automatically prevail, absent any judicial review, is in itself an abuse of power.

Did you look up the meaning of CO-EQUAL yet?

Your logic is still way off. The DA in your example is merely doing the yeoman's work of establishing probable cause so he can obtain the warrant before searching your home. What the cops smelled and what the neighbors saw may be enough to persuade a judge to issue the warrant.

The House is impeaching Trump for the mere act of requiring them to get a warrant. That's like the cops arresting you for refusing to let them invade your home without legal grounds to do so.
Originally Posted by lustylad

you aint stopping, is you?

we do not think alike. I expected you to say the DA was overreaching to send out people to investigate further, but you think he could have obtained a Warrant based on "I think I might have smelled..." Man, and you are trying to defend liberty for Trump, yet you abandon it for a Reefer-smoker. that gets to the heart of the hard-right mindset.

The DA isn't overreaching as long as he gets a fucking warrant before trying to search your home. Note that I said whatever the DA presents to the judge as evidence of probable cause "may" be sufficient to obtain a warrant. I didn't "abandon" anyone's liberty - so wtf are you even talking about?

You're right, we don't think alike. I believe in equal justice under the law. You want a two-tiered system that allows justice to be abused by Democrats and denied to Republicans.

Did you look up the meaning of CO-EQUAL yet?

I believe in equal justice under the law. You want a two-tiered system that allows justice to be abused by Democrats and denied to Republicans. Originally Posted by lustylad

is that so?

well I don't define "justice" like you do.. I don't consider it to be a harsh punishment to impeach Trump. the Senate decides if he is punished. he is only denied justice if the Senate convicts. he could be guilty as Hell, and they will not.

Bambi, please stop with the obsession.. seek medical attention. I peeked here, because I knew you were stalking me, and would slander me, LOL... I thought it would be "Tran fucks preggos", LOL.

you are still sore over that PGA debate.. I forgot all about it. and you still don't understand what I said, so let me try one more time.

I never said I went to that Tournament.. I posted the link because it gave clarity on the idea that Ford could still drive a golf ball well, into his old age. I said I attended the Colonial Golf Tournament and witnessed in person, that Ford outdrove a couple of Pros.. I further stipulated that it was on a Par 5, during the Pro-Am, and the Pros very well may have hit a 3 or 4 wood off the tee, which could account for the fact that Ford distanced them by 20 yards.

get help, Bambi.. you have worried over this for nearly 9 months? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You’re lying again. It’s you that needs help. Lots of it. It seems like many here are “stalking” your idiotic posts and lies. PGA players can hit 5 irons farther thaN Gerald Fords driver. Especially when he was 68.

.

is that so?

well I don't define "justice" like you do.. I don't consider it to be a harsh punishment to impeach Trump. the Senate decides if he is punished. he is only denied justice if the Senate convicts. he could be guilty as Hell, and they will not. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

And he could be innocent as hell, and the dim-retards will deny him due process in their eagerness to smear him with their false narratives as we head into an election year.

By definition, denial of due process IS a denial of justice, whether or not the Senate "punishes" him.

The irony here is I don't particularly like trumpy. But I do like our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

I understand when dim-retards like you try to turn our system of justice on its head and assume GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT against any and every American you dislike, it threatens ALL of us and ALL of our rights and freedoms right down to the core.

Did you look up the meaning of CO-EQUAL yet?

.

And he could be innocent as hell, and the dim-retards will deny him due process in their eagerness to smear him with their false narratives as we head into an election year.
Originally Posted by lustylad

the dim-retards don't have a say. your Republican Senate does.. here is your chance to call witnesses, tell the whole story! isn't that great!? Trump is absolved of all guilt!

and you won't do it.. watch..