Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 15, 2019

Lindsey Graham will not try to "pretend to be a fair juror" should Donald Trump face an impeachment trial in the US Senate.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I don't see why there would be any expectation of a 'fair juror' in a completely political process. It goes against the meaning of a 'political process'.

#1 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 11:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#1 | Posted by Avigdore

You f**kers are just lying.

#2 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-15 11:49 AM | Reply

Lying back watching Democrats shoot themselves in the foot? I suppose you may be right for the first time.

#3 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 11:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't see why there would be any expectation of a 'fair juror' in a completely political process. It goes against the meaning of a 'political process'."

Then you don't know the difference between a political process and a partisan one.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-15 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-15 12:51 PM

political process: noun:
Definition of political process: the process of the formulation and administration of public policy usually by interaction between social groups and political institutions or between political leadership and public opinion

Any process administered based on public opinion, as the definition of the phrase indicates, is not a 'fair' process.
You, simply, were ignorant of what a 'political process' was when you mistakenly made your #4. I'm glad I could help fix your ignorance.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

link to above definition www.merriam-webster.com

#6 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 12:59 PM | Reply

"Any process administered based on public opinion, as the definition of the phrase indicates, is not a 'fair' process."

That's an extremely cynical interpretation of how administration of public policy works.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-15 02:12 PM | Reply

Cynical or no, it's the definition of the phrase. I apologize for calling you ignorant. I should have phrased that better, I was being juvenile.

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 02:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Any process administered based on public opinion, as the definition of the phrase indicates, is not a 'fair' process."

That's not in the definition you posted.
It does not say "interaction ... between political leadership and public opinion" is not "fair."
Not really sure where you got that whole "not fair" thing from...
Probably from Deplorable victim mentality.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-15 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It does not say "interaction ... between political leadership and public opinion" is not "fair."

This, plus "interaction between" is not the same thing as "based on". The process itself is not unfair. Abuse of the process can be unfair. Even if Graham does believe the process was abused in the House (which is doubtful), it doesn't give him or anyone in the Senate the right to abuse the process one way or the other. That also goes for any Democrats who say they would vote to convict/remove (not just impeach) before the trial even occurs.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-15 03:25 PM | Reply

"it doesn't give him or anyone in the Senate the right to abuse the process one way or the other."

Seriously?
If Graham doesn't have that right, then what law or rule is he breaking?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-15 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even if Graham does believe the process was abused in the House (which is doubtful), it doesn't give him or anyone in the Senate the right to abuse the process one way or the other. That also goes for any Democrats who say they would vote to convict/remove (not just impeach) before the trial even occurs.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-15 03:25 PM
Fortunately we don't have any evidence that Graham has, or plans on, abusing the process.

#12 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 03:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Lindsey Graham will 'not pretend to be a fair juror'"

"we don't have any evidence that Graham has, or plans on, abusing the process."

Not being a fair juror is his plan to abuse the process, Avigdore.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-15 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not being a fair juror is not an abuse of a political process.

#14 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 03:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Not being a fair juror is not an abuse of a political process."

^
The Mind Of A Deplorable

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-15 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ABIGBORE has taken preemptive steps at excusing the partisanship he knows will occur amongst senate republicans.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-15 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

On the positive side, I suppose it's healthy for Lindsey to finally come out of the closet about something.

#17 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-16 07:12 AM | Reply

If a potential juror tells a judge that he/she has formed an unchangeable opinion and will vote to acquit the defendant before the trial starts, that potential juror will be removed from the jury pool.

#18 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-16 07:14 AM | Reply

Lindsey Graham was a lot easier to take back in the days when he gave Jack Nicholson a run for the rather sleepy-eyed, slow talking "George Hanson" role in Easy Rider. Now he's just another hoary blast from the antebellum, antediluvian past.

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2019-12-16 07:26 AM | Reply

ABIGBORE has taken preemptive steps at excusing the partisanship he knows will occur amongst senate republicans.

#16 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-12-15 03:49 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

Congress set the bar, if you have a problem with the way it will be handled in the senate direct your outrage at Schiff and Nadler.

#20 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-16 09:57 AM | Reply

Congress set the bar, if you have a problem with the way it will be handled in the senate direct your outrage at Schiff and Nadler.

#20 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

They never claimed to have come to a pre-conclusion. They always publicly said that they would follow where the evidence led. This is where the evidence has led us. It is Republicans who have made their mind up before seeing all the evidence.

You just think it was "unfair" because you think it is unfair that anyone had the gall to POINT OUT the corruption and abuses of power of conservatives in the White House. Sondland testified under oath that there was a quid pro quo, and that he DIRECTLY told Ukraine that there was a quid pro quo. That is definitely probably cause to believe an impeachable offense was committed. You SHOULD want to explore the FACTS and determine whether there was an abuse of power. But, you don't because you are partisan.

Now you are claiming that it is OK for YOU to do the wrong thing because you THINK that someone else on the other side did the wrong thing. Didn't your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Are your morality and ethics really that fluid, that you base whether you believe that YOUR actions are right or wrong completely on how ANOTHER person acts? Or, as a conservative, do you actually HAVE any morality or ethics.

I BELIEVE that Democrats have acted honorably and in the Constitutional spirit during this process. And, as far as I can tell, pretty much all liberals feel that way. You seem to disagree, which is your right, but you are also biased against liberals and biased towards Trump, so it is not surprising that you would assume the worst of the people you see as your opponents. So, we can agree to disagree on exactly how partisan and/or honorable the actions of the Democrats are.

But, we can ALL AGREE (even conservatives) that Republicans have been completely partisan and dishonorable throughout this process. "You did it first" is an ADMISSION that YOU are doing what you are accusing others of.

That Republicans are partisan and dishonorable is a FACT because EVERYONE agrees with it. That Democrats are as well is your opinion, that I think is based upon your biases against them.

#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-16 10:27 AM | Reply

They never claimed to have come to a pre-conclusion. They always publicly said that they would follow where the evidence led. This is where the evidence has led us. It is Republicans who have made their mind up before seeing all the evidence.#21 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-16 10:27 AM | REPLY

Oh of course not, I guess we shouldn't believe Nancy Pelosi when she said the other day they have been trying to impeach for over 2 years. How about Maxine Waters? Al Green?

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-16 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But, we can ALL AGREE (even conservatives) that Republicans have been completely partisan and dishonorable throughout this process.#21 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-16 10:27 AM | FLAG:

I think we can all agree that you either didn't watch any of the trials or if you did you didn't have the sound on.

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-16 11:00 AM | Reply

Oh of course not, I guess we shouldn't believe Nancy Pelosi when she said the other day they have been trying to impeach for over 2 years. How about Maxine Waters? Al Green?

#22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Awww... Is that what Trump told you?

To answer your question.... no. You SHOULD believe what Nancy Pelosi says. What you SHOULD NOT do is believe what Trump says that she said. Because he is a proven liar. Which you already know. Similar to what I said before, EVERYONE agrees that conservative politicians are scum, even conservatives (they think ALL politicians are scum). The disagreement is that conservatives also feel the same way about liberal politicians, but liberals disagree with them. But again, that can be explained by conservatives being biased to assume the worst about their opponents.

So, is this what you are talking about...

www.msnbc.com

You might want to stop chugging down and then regurgitating whatever Trump and the conservative propaganda machine feeds you. Makes you look like an idiot.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-16 11:23 AM | Reply

That Republicans are partisan and dishonorable is a FACT because EVERYONE agrees with it. That Democrats are as well is your opinion, that I think is based upon your biases against them.
#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-16 10:27 AM

I disagree. You may not point to your opinions and pretend that they are facts without expecting to be called out on it.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-16 11:34 AM | Reply

You may not point to your opinions and pretend that they are facts without expecting to be called out on it.

#25 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Go ahead. But you didn't support yourself at all. You just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. "I disagree, but I don't know why. I just 'feel' like what you said has to be wrong because it doesn't fit the conservative narrative".

Are you going to argue that what Graham is doing here, and McConnell, and Nunes, and all the others is NOT partisan and dishonorable? Because the only defense of their behavior I have heard here was "Well, Democrats did it first". And as I said before, that is basically an ADMISSION that YOU are engaged in that same behavior that you are implicitly condemning in others.

Or are you going to agree that conservatives all acknowledge that Republicans are being partisan and dishonorable, but that is an "Argumentum ad populum" so doesn't mean that it is actually true. I can mince words and argue semantics with the best of them.

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-16 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24 [At Politico's "Women Rule" summit], Anna Palmer asked Pelosi to react to the criticism that Democrats are racing through their impeachment inquiry of the president.

"It's been going on for 22 months, two-and-a-half years actually," Pelosi said initially.

Then immediately made clear she was referring to the Mueller investigation.

"I think we are not moving with speed. Was it two and a half years ago they initiated the Mueller investigation? It's not about speed. It's about urgency. One of the charges against the president of the United States is that he was violating his oath of office by asking for government to interfere in our election undermining the integrity of our elections," she said.

So she said they have been working on impeachment for two and a half years. Go ahead and go to MSNBC for the spin little puppet. The Mueller report was all about getting rid of Trump, and it backfired miserably.

#27 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-16 12:22 PM | Reply

Or are you going to agree that conservatives all acknowledge that Republicans are being partisan and dishonorable, but that is an "Argumentum ad populum" so doesn't mean that it is actually true. I can mince words and argue semantics with the best of them.

#26 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-16 12:08 PM | FLAG:

So tell us, did congress run a fair and non-partisan hearing in your opinion?

#28 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-16 12:24 PM | Reply

Are you going to argue that what Graham is doing here, and McConnell, and Nunes, and all the others is NOT partisan and dishonorable? Because the only defense of their behavior I have heard here was "Well, Democrats did it first". And as I said before, that is basically an ADMISSION that YOU are engaged in that same behavior that you are implicitly condemning in others.

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-16 12:08 PM
I'm going to state that not all politicians are partisan and dishonorable, Republicans included. The vast majority are people who have the interests of their country and their constituents high on their lists of priorities. Since conservatives don't all acknowledge the BS you're spewing above, much less 'EVERYONE'...you are wrong.

#29 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-16 12:31 PM | Reply

In a real trial any juror that walked in the door and said I will not vote to convict no matter what would be summarily removed from the jury pool

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-16 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So tell us, did congress run a fair and non-partisan hearing in your opinion?

The "hearings" were both fair and impartial since the White House was allowed to send lawyers and make a counter-case if they wanted to but they chose not to. The Republicans on the committees were allowed the same exact time and opportunity as were the Democrats. The only restriction was that the Republicans were not allowed to bring in certain witnesses that had no information whatsoever directly tied to the matter before the committees, ie. whether Trump's actions constituted a violation of principles and laws rising to supporting his impeachment.

The "investigative depositions" (which like secret grand jury testimony) took place in the SCIF under rules that allowed both parties equal time to ask questions from those testifying and were done as fairly as the rules allowed which were written and codified by the GOP Congress when they were passed in anticipation of them being used against Hillary Clinton were she to have been elected in 2016.

In the two prior 20th Century impeachments, outside investigations were completed and the details were passed on to Congress so there was no need to depose witnesses like was done in this case. But you already know these things and blindly ignore them in order to embrace false and misleading GOP talking points.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-16 12:41 PM | Reply

I don't see why there would be any expectation of a 'fair juror' in a completely political process.

The oath for a Senate juror requires them to do "impartial justice." I'm sure you'll find some disingenuous way to weasel around that, so i'm just here to demonstrate how dumb you are to anyone else who has a brain.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-16 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just what evidence exists that shows that dems/libbies know about 'FAIR'?

#33 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-16 01:04 PM | Reply

Just what evidence exists that shows that dems/libbies know about 'FAIR'?

#33 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-12-16 01:04 PM | REPLY |

All of it.

#34 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-16 01:14 PM | Reply

It seems both Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell have admitted they are unable to properly do their jobs.

They should be fired.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-16 01:17 PM | Reply

The oath for a Senate juror requires them to do "impartial justice." - #32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-16 12:46 PM
When they take that oath, I'm sure they'll be bound by it.

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-16 01:18 PM | Reply

So how do you reconcile your inability to see why there'd be any "expectation" of a fair juror with the oath to do impartial justice?

Keep dancing.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-16 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because the president hasn't been impeached yet, much less Senators sitting to try the impeachment. Why would politicians be bound now by oaths to behave in a way that he doesn't even know he's going to need be? The current political process does not require or expect and Senator to be a fair juror. If the President is impeached, and if the Senator sits to try that impeachment, I'm sure he'll follow the oath that he will take at that time.

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-16 01:35 PM | Reply

So your argument is that the oath of impartiality hasn't been taken yet? Sorry, your claim about an "expectation" of a "fair juror" was forward-looking.

It's embarrassing the lengths you'll go to deny you just hadn't thought of something. Very Trumpian.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-16 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Lindsey Graham isn't good at pretending. He has pretended to be a straight man for decades, and failed miserably at it. A gay man trapped himself in an anti-gay political party.

#40 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-16 09:03 PM | Reply

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Seems like they're violating that oat on multiple accounts.

The current political process does not require or expect and Senator to be a fair juror.

You mean YOU and the other sycophantic cultists don't expect them nor want them to be fair jurors.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-17 01:30 PM | Reply

Watch Lindsey Graham scolding Senators in 1998 on making up their minds before knowing the facts:

Lindsey Graham in 1998:

"Members of the Senate have said, 'I understand everything there is about this case and I won't vote to impeach the president.' Please allow the facts to do the talking." pic.twitter.com/UdEQytLyZZ
@Windsor Mann (@WindsorMann)
November 20, 2019

Graham's earned his picture a spot in the dictionary when people look up 'hypocrite.'

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-17 05:27 PM | Reply

The whistleblower is a hero!! I would like to hear from him/her/them in a way that does not reveal their identity!!

#43 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-17 09:29 PM | Reply

"The whistleblower is a hero!! I would like to hear from him/her/them "

Why? Specifically. What would or should h/s/t testify to, which hasn't been corroborated by other witnesses? Again, please be specific.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-17 09:37 PM | Reply

In a different time, Monica Lewinsky would have been called the whistleblower.

I wonder if that parallel universe is better than this one.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-17 09:39 PM | Reply

Graham lied people died!

#46 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-17 09:47 PM | Reply

I'm not sure what's going to happen, but when it happens, the headline "Graham Crackers" has been waiting in the wings for far too long.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-17 09:50 PM | Reply

"Graham lied people died!"

So are you going to address my question in post #44?

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-17 10:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort