Last day of arguments

[AlwaysWrite]

I CANT BELIEVE YOU DONT GET IT SIR. EVERY PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIME GETS THEIR DAY IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENTS OR GUILT. ISNT IT UP TO THE TRIAL TO DETERMINE GUILT, NOT YOU OR ME? THE DEMS ARE NO MORE "PREACHING VS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT" ANY MORE THAN THE REPS ARE "PREACHING VS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT". SO...ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO HAVE A REAL TRIAL THEN? OR IS THE TRIAL JUST A FARCE? AGAIN, YOU SAY THE DEMS HAVE NOTHING, THEN LET ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOW THAT.

Dear WAMO:

As Greg said in his follow-up post ... THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF!

That's an important part of American law. Do you not understand that at all?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

... and don’t gimme that Bolton crap either. Nadler WITHDREW the subpoena for Bolton to testify.

Then, once Pelosi impeached Trump- Shiff wants Bolton to testify in the Senate. He (Schiff) is not in a position to make that request. Neither is Pelosi. The impeachment is done. The papers are signed. Trump is impeached. Understand this and read it slowly : The Senate is THE JURY.

Again, THE SENATE IS THE JURY.

ONCE MORE

THE SENATE IS THE JURY

Impeachments are conducted in THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Not in THE SENATE.

Please for the love of mankind- TRY to keep up. You are making yourself look foolish.

Dear REVerse:

Thanks for attempting to help WAMO understand some of the basics of American law. I understood those concepts before I started elementary school, and in two consecutive posts, you have made it easy for a first-grader to understand.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

AND I THINK MAYBE YOU MEANT PERSONKIND REV.

... and what, pray tell, does THAT mean?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

G, IF THE PROSECUTION FAILS TO MAKE A CASE, THERE IS NO TRIAL. IN THIS CASE THE PROSECUTION AND JURY ARE NOTHING BUT A JOKE AND A WAIST OF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY. EVERYONE OF THOSE FUCKERS SHOULD BE FIRED! NONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY OR THE PEOPLE IN IT.

Dear WAMO:

You can CHARGE anyone with anything, whether you have a valid case or not. In this situation, it's not a valid case -- for removal from office, anyway -- because THERE IS NO CRIME ALLEGED IN THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES!

At least, you're correct on one thing. This impeachment fiasco is "a waist (sic) of time and taxpayer money." And that waste of time and money can't logically be blamed on the Republicans.

 

[Greg T.]

G, IF THE PROSECUTION FAILS TO MAKE A CASE, THERE IS NO TRIAL. IN THIS CASE THE PROSECUTION AND JURY ARE NOTHING BUT A JOKE AND A WAIST OF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY. EVERYONE OF THOSE FUCKERS SHOULD BE FIRED! NONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY OR THE PEOPLE IN IT.

Not true. When you have a trial you have the prosecution and defense. The prosecution presents their case as based upon their version of the facts derived from their investigation. The defense counters with their side in an attempt to discredit the prosecution's case. In a standard trial there only needs to be reasonable doubt to render a not guilty verdict. Never the less. That IS the trial, whether guilty or innocent. In the case of O.J., everyone knows he's guilty, but the prosecution botched the case. Still, there was a trial.

 

[WAMO]

NOW THE TRIAL CONTIUNES IN THE SENATE. THEY ARE NOT THERE SIMPLY TO WALK IN MONDAY AND SAY GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.

 

[WAMO]

"AND I THINK MAYBE YOU MEANT PERSONKIND REV". PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY. GUESS MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE FIRST GRADE. LOOKS LIKE YOU WER'NT DONE YET. THANX AW.

 

[WAMO]

WELL G, THERE IS A CASE. EVEN AW AGREES THERE IS A CASE. MAYBE NOT FOR REMOVAL, BUT THERE IS A CASE. THANX AGAIN AW.

 

[REVerse °]

WAM do you know why the Demo☭rats impeached Trump?

Please be specific.

Thanks

 

[WAMO]

BOTTOM LINE: THEY RUN THE HOUSE AND THEY DONT LIKE TRUMP. PERIOD. I THINK ITS ALL BOGUS. BUT, IF SOMETHING HAS COME TO LIGHT THAT WASNT AVAILABLE BEFORE, LETS HEAR IT.
WHY WILL HE NOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING, NO MATER WHAT COMES UP IN THIS TRIAL, REPS RUN THE SENATE. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT THE REPS WONT BREAK RANKS. IF SOME "NEW" EVIDENCE COMES FORTH THAT TRUMP DID SOMETHING WRONG, WILL THE REPS TURN THEIR HEADS AND JUMP OFF A CLIFF LIKE A LEMMING? MAYBE.
IF "NEW" EVIDENCE COMES FORTH THAT TRUMP ABSOLUTLY DID NOTHING WRONG, WILL THE DEMS GET OVER IT AND LEAVE HIM ALONE, NO THEY WONT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FUND THEIR FRIVOLITY. YOUR WELCOME REV.

 

[WAMO]

JUST READ A SMALL ARTICLE THAT THE DEFENSE IS USING THE SAME "FACTS" THE PROSECUTION DID. THEY ARE JUST PUTTING THEIR SPIN ON THE SAME "FACTS". SO MAYBE SOMETIMES THE "FACTS" CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY.

 

[REVerse °]

I find it amusing that the whole fiasco is based on hearsay. Rules for “them” and rules for “us.” “They” have to be voted out. “We” have to go to prison. There exists something seriously wrong here.

 

[WAMO]

THATS EXACTLY RIGHT REV. THEY LIVE THEIR LIVES AND RUN "OUR" GOVERNMENT UNDER A WHOLE SET OF DIFFERENT RULES THAN WE HAVE TO LIVE BY. WE HAVE TO LIVE AND LEARN UNDER RULES AND LAWS THEY PASS, THEY DO NOT.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

In a standard trial there only needs to be reasonable doubt to render a not guilty verdict.

... but regarding impeachment (and removal from office), the evidence should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. You shouldn't be able to convict anyone on hearsay, speculation and opinion if there aren't PROVEN FACTS to indicate guilt. And how can you convict someone of a crime WHEN THE DEFENDANT ISN'T EVEN CHARTED WITH A CRIME?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

NOW THE TRIAL CONTIUNES IN THE SENATE. THEY ARE NOT THERE SIMPLY TO WALK IN MONDAY AND SAY GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.

Dear WAMO:

That's not exactly a brilliant statement, but it is accurate. A guilty or not-guilty verdict doesn't come until both sides have fully stated their case, and questions by the Senators on both sides have been issued and responded to.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

"AND I THINK MAYBE YOU MEANT PERSONKIND REV". PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY. GUESS MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE FIRST GRADE. LOOKS LIKE YOU WER'NT DONE YET. THANX AW.

Dear WAMO:

Please! Even in first grade, I used better spelling, clarity and writing style than in the above-quoted post.

While in FIRST GRADE, I won a county spelling bee open to students from 4th grade through high school. My teacher talked to the event's officials and said that if made eligible, she had a first-grader who could win the whole thing. The officials granted an exception, and I didn't disappoint my teacher.

 

[WAMO]

WELL, I WAS WRONG AW. LOOKS LIKE YOU DID MAKE IT TO SECOND GRADE. THAT LAST STATEMENT PROVES IT. THANX AGAIN AW

 

[AlwaysWrite]

WELL G, THERE IS A CASE. EVEN AW AGREES THERE IS A CASE. MAYBE NOT FOR REMOVAL, BUT THERE IS A CASE. THANX AGAIN AW.

Dear WAMO:

There is a CASE if a charge is filed. What you don't seem to understand is that the prosecutors MUST PROVE the case, and there is no burden whatsoever for the defendant to respond at all if the charges are so flimsy and/or frivolous that it becomes obvious that the prosecutors simply haven't met the obligation of fact-based proof.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

JUST READ A SMALL ARTICLE THAT THE DEFENSE IS USING THE SAME "FACTS" THE PROSECUTION DID. THEY ARE JUST PUTTING THEIR SPIN ON THE SAME "FACTS". SO MAYBE SOMETIMES THE "FACTS" CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY.

Dear WAMO:

I'd be interested to find out what FAKE NEWS "small article" source you derived that from. Would you please be so kind as to cite the source?

 

[WAMO]

IM GLAD YOU HAD A STUPIDENDOUS TIME IN FIRST GRADEE AW. SORRY TO SEE THA LAST 70 YEARS HAVNNT GONE SO GUUD. THANX AGAIN AW