Comments by "Spring Bloom" (@springbloom5940) on "Schiff says Democrats "proved our case" against Trump in Senate trial" video.

'Fair trial' doesn't mean the jury trying to prove the prosecution's case, imbecile. This is not a trial, this is a deliberation. The fact that you are repeating the 'no witnesses' rhetoric, only shows you to be woefully ignorant, or fundamentally dishonest. I'm going with dishonest, but you can claim stupidity and prove me wrong?
7
@cody7378 How do you 'know' that with no witnesses? Idiot, most trials don't have witnesses.
2
More? They had a trial with no witnesses or evidence, remember? Im really curious for his explanation of how it works, to 'prove their case', without any witnesses or evidence?
2
@emmanueladeniyi4137 Directly involved in what??? Ohhhh... I get it, if we just keep calling witnesses, eventually we'll get something. You know what that's called, right, imbecile?
1
@charlesljones2454 Yes, there is - when the case is presented for trial. You watch too much tv, if you think prosecutors present new evidence and witnesses during trial. You cannot present evidence or testimony that the defense has not had opportunity to evaluate and prepare case defense for. That's called 'trial by ambush' and is prohibited by rules of discovery. Defense is rarely allowed to present new evidence during trial and only when the Judge deems it profound and only because the defense has explicit presumption of innocence. The fact is, all of the documents and witnesses they wanted, were available through valid subpoena, but they decided the propaganda value of a Christmas impeachment headline, outweighed the value of those witnesses and documents. That should tell you all you need to know about their case.
1
@emmanueladeniyi4137 That is objectively FALSE.
1
@emmanueladeniyi4137 You are actually calling other people 'willfully stupid', after posting that??? 🤦
1
rubberkidney 'We know he did it, even though there are no witnesses or evidence'
1
@charlesljones2454 The House had over a dozen witnesses and a dumptruck full of documents. All of which were entered into evidence before and at the trial and were reviewed by every member of the Senate. The only reasons for calling more are A) because they haven't made their case, B) to drag out the trial and keep the negative stories and headlines active and C) to present oppo research, on the taxpayer dime, in a public spectacle. This is supposed to be a trial , with real consequences; not a pillory for you to throw your rotten vegetables and dung at the accused.
1
@emmanueladeniyi4137 CITATIONS NEEDED
1
@dmartini429 Don't use words you dont understand.
1
Redman Law 99 They don't understand anything. They simply wait to be told what they think. You can see it in any comment thread, where someone on the video says a buzzword, or drops some rhetorical talking point and then everyone in the comments repeat it verbatim, like a flock of magpies.
1
@dragonmandestructinator2847 What about the Senate Democrats who have been calling for impeachment since the day he was elected; including the ones that want his job? I'm sure they can be fair an impartial, can't they? Have you ever heard of a trial, where the jurors openly hate and stand to personally benefit from the defendant's conviction?
1
@vernebolton4363 See, this is what these idiots do. The number is actually 70%, but he just cant help but lie. What's more telling though, is that they seem to believe that '70%' are demanding prosecution witnesses and that it doesn't include the half of the country who support the President and a substantial number of Democrats, who want Biden in the hot seat. Seriously, anyone who thinks Liarwatha and her followers don't want Biden subpoenaed, are clinically stupid.
1
@LFOD4US You know 90% of statistics are made up, right?
1
@stk9387 No, its not 'new evidence' its old evidence that Democrats decided wasn't as important as the propaganda value of impeachment for Christmas. They chose poirly. Then... You go on to talk about Republicans denying a fair trial. Im pretty sure you don't know what 'fair trial' means. First, the 'jury' has zero obligation to consider the defendant's guilt. None. Their obligation, is to assume innocence, until the prosecutor proves otherwise. The 'prosecutor' is the House. This isnt a 'trial', this a deliberation. The 'trial' already took place and the defendant was denied witnesses, evidence and cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses. The House presented a case(impeachment) and the Senate 'trial' is the jury deliberation(learn civics). But, that aside, how do you suppose Republicans are obligated to provide a 'fair trial', when a critical number of the jurors openly hate and have been demanding the defendant's conviction, for 3 years before the alleged offence occurred? How about the jurors who stand to personally benefit beyond all hopes and dreams, from the defendant's conviction? Have you ever hear of a trial where half the jurors had a publicly professed prejudice against the defendant and or publicly campaigned to take the defendant's job? Im sure they can set all that aside and be fair and impartial, only considering the evidence. You know, unlike Republicans, who are all evil and dishonest and stupid and corrupt 🙄
1
@stk9387 https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiugZGl4rXnAhXRF80KHUxXBTYQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0LJtedGTlfeOYiizIUiMun
1
@stk9387 My point, is that you don't know WTF you're talking about, idiot.
1
@dmartini429 'Fair', 'trial', 'evidence', 'honor', 'debunked', 'Russia'... there's more, but reading through your comments, I see you have a fondness for bellowing accusations and then sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid the humiliation of the response.
1
@dragonmandestructinator2847 Womp, womp
1
Sperup AD Awww, does someone have a hurty on their feels?
1
Sperup AD Indeed, we can see who got triggered.
1
Sperup AD You helmet head 🤦
1
They proved their case? Without witnesses or evidence??? 🧐
1