Witness...but...
 

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Witness...but...
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.

Witness...but...
 

Wayne B Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?===Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rulesfor a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is thatyou are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.

Ergo, the pot calling the kettle black.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazon...net/index.html

Witness...but...
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:31:06 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.

They shouldn't even use the term "trial". These things are nothing
like an actual trial. The judge was a member of the prosecution, the
jury was a bunch of partisan hacks who already knew how they were
going to vote before Nancy even decided on a charge and there were no
rules of evidence. Now it turns out the prosecution are the ones who
decide which witnesses could be called.
You can't even call this an inquisition.
It is just a partisan political witch hunt.

Witness...but...
 

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.


So the rules say we can be like Russia and let only our supporters testify

Witness...but...
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:31:06 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.

Should not the rules for impeachment be fair to both sides? Do you honestly
believe the Republicans would be allowed to call any witnesses they want?

More liberal bull****.

Snarky? I suppose. Your idea of 'fairness' sucks.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Witness...but...
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 18:16:10 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:31:06 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.

They shouldn't even use the term "trial". These things are nothing
like an actual trial. The judge was a member of the prosecution, the
jury was a bunch of partisan hacks who already knew how they were
going to vote before Nancy even decided on a charge and there were no
rules of evidence. Now it turns out the prosecution are the ones who
decide which witnesses could be called.
You can't even call this an inquisition.
It is just a partisan political witch hunt.

You're gettiin' pretty snarky there, young man!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Witness...but...
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 00:58:17 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.


So the rules say we can be like Russia and let only our supporters testify

You're even snarkier than Greg!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Witness...but...
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 00:58:17 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0500, John wrote:

"Specific witnesses are still subject to approval by Senate vote." (WaPo)

Well, that will ensure a fair trial, eh Wayne?

===

Reportedly, the rules for an impeachment are different from the rules
for a trial, or so I am told, reportedly. Also reportedly, is that
you are acting a bit of a snark, reportedly.


So the rules say we can be like Russia and let only our supporters testify

That is pretty much true when the same party controls the House that
voted to impeach and the Senate that gets to run the inquisition.
Everything can come down to a vote and if you have the votes, you make
the rules.
In this case there wasn't even the hint of an impartial person
presiding.
Did you watch Leahy reading the verdict? He looked like a person who
ate a bad street tamale in Tijuana and had a long bus ride home with
no bathroom on board.