The Impeachment Thread

#34,551
#34,551
Orange defense said:
Just like when Hitlery called us deplorable, and Trump defended himself, and his base? Or when Joe Biden would take him out to the woodshed, and Trump said, “I’d like to see him try? I’m sure you hated that to, right?🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😳🥶
Click to expand...
Thank you AM64 for the like. I get that you hated that to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,552
#34,552
Orange defense said:
Just like when Hitlery called us deplorable, and Trump defended himself, and his base? Or when Joe Biden would take him out to the woodshed, and Trump said, “I’d like to see him try? I’m sure you hated that to, right?🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😳🥶
Click to expand...

I have to admit I could get used to some of the good ole bashings that used to go on in politics ... the ones with canes, spittoons, etc. I'd really be happy if we could get politicians to settle some differences by dueling with things that are lethal. It could help with the DC infestation caused by not having term limits. My true fear is that politicians would be so incompetent with weapons they'd never actually do any damage to each other. But, yeah, I love to see what happens if old Joe invited Trump to the woodshed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#34,553
#34,553
C-south said:
So it should’ve been evidence months ago? On another note, WGAF.
Click to expand...
There is nothing that says all evidence must be presented to the grand jury (the House of Representatives) prior to an indictment (impeachment), or that any new evidence which arises prior to the trial, can't be presented to the jury (the Senate) for consideration during the trial. Your argument is very silly.
 
#34,554
#34,554
BowlBrother85 said:
Such BS... no wonder Trump feels at ease with lying, his supporters give lame excuses for it like this. There are many pics of Trump in social gatherings with Parnas,... and with his son and daughter and son-in-law. Why is it so hard for some of you to acknowledge the obvious here? Trump knows damn well who Lev Parnas is, and he has been lying about his contact with him.
Click to expand...

I’m not his supporter but I do think he is by far the best option we have....I don’t care anything about this impeachment bc I feel it is absolute nonsense..... I was just commenting that I don’t pay attention to anyone around me unless they are super close to me.... I don’t know the names of people I see at my job that I talk to every single day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and AM64
#34,556
#34,556
AM64 said:
I have to admit I could get used to some of the good ole bashings that used to go on in politics ... the ones with canes, spittoons, etc. I'd really be happy if we could get politicians to settle some differences by dueling with things that are lethal. It could help with the DC infestation caused by not having term limits. My true fear is that politicians would be so incompetent with weapons they'd never actually do any damage to each other. But, yeah, I love to see what happens if old Joe invited Trump to the woodshed.
Click to expand...
Well, that might be worth of admission to see though. Maybe, they could settle it in a wrestling ring?😂😳 I don’t think that some politicians couldn’t even use a cane. I don’t know. Listen, I have to run some stuff in the office for a while, but I’ll be back later. Nice talking to you AM64. If you’re around later, then I’ll catch you on the flip side here, ok?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,557
#34,557
BowlBrother85 said:
There is nothing that says all evidence must be presented to the grand jury (the House of Representatives) prior to an indictment (impeachment), or that any new evidence which arises prior to the trial, can't be presented to the jury (the Senate) for consideration during the trial. Your argument is very silly.
Click to expand...

Then we should have the guts to simply state this is all a political process mocking an "honest" judicial process ... sound and fury meaning nothing in the end. Instead the term "impeached" lives on even if further political process (mocking justice) clears the president. When the people elect someone - warts and all, then the other party shouldn't be able to make a big row over the warts. If you are so concerned about "abuse of power" detrimental to the treatment of a political opponent (or just perhaps a potential opponent), then you should be demanding the exclusion of some dim senators who may be Trump's opposition in the upcoming election. Probably best you should be arguing that the impeachment process be completely depoliticized and be based only on real criminal acts. Withholding funds as a means to get someone to do the right thing (even if others disagree with "right") is as old as the hills - how many times have parents used the threat of withholding funds to get kids to do something? I think one of your favorites pointed out "elections have consequences" and something about "getting over it" when he decided to ride roughshod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, RavinDave and C-south
#34,558
#34,558
AM64 said:
Then we should have the guts to simply state this is all a political process mocking an "honest" judicial process ... sound and fury meaning nothing in the end. Instead the term "impeached" lives on even if further political process (mocking justice) clears the president. When the people elect someone - warts and all, then the other party shouldn't be able to make a big row over the warts. If you are so concerned about "abuse of power" detrimental to the treatment of a political opponent (or just perhaps a potential opponent), then you should be demanding the exclusion of some dim senators who may be Trump's opposition in the upcoming election. Probably best you should be arguing that the impeachment process be completely depoliticized and be based only on real criminal acts. Withholding funds as a means to get someone to do the right thing (even if others disagree with "right") is as old as the hills - how many times have parents used the threat of withholding funds to get kids to do something? I think one of your favorites pointed out "elections have consequences" and something about "getting over it" when he decided to ride roughshod.
Click to expand...

Probably would’ve been ok if Trump just threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine if they didn't investigate the corrupt Bidens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,559
#34,559
BowlBrother85 said:
Be dismissive if you wish... Trump has no integrity. Neither do those who try to defend him.

"The most valuable asset a person can ever possess, has no price. It's integrity." - Will Rogers
Click to expand...

Does a person possess integrity when they delete 30k subpoenaed emails? Does a person of integrity lie to a court to illegally spy on a known CIA asset and presidential candidate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,562
#34,562
BowlBrother85 said:
The Senate trial hasn't even started yet. Are you saying new evidence not included during the indictment (in this case, impeachment), can't be included at trial? Wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes bozo that's what he's saying. Maybe your to intellectually challenged to understand that evidence from a convicted felon looking to get his sentence reduced is not evidence. It's not coincidental this stuff was just brought to light but you lack the intelligence to see it. It's the way Dems have acted for 3 years. Bombshell allegations and clear evidence only to be Hoodwinked time after time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,563
#34,563
vols40 said:
Yes bozo that's what he's saying. Maybe your to intellectually challenged to understand that evidence from a convicted felon looking to get his sentence reduced is not evidence. It's not coincidental this stuff was just brought to light but you lack the intelligence to see it. It's the way Dems have acted for 3 years. Bombshell allegations and clear evidence only to be Hoodwinked time after time.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to Lev Parnas, you should get your own facts straight before suggesting that someone else is "intellectually challenged". Lev Parnas has not been convicted of anything yet. He just stands accused of some campaign finance violations. As for your assertion "that evidence from a convicted felon looking to get his sentence reduced is not evidence" ? Well, that is just ignorant. It's called turning state's evidence and it happens all the time. For example, when prosecutors are trying to convict a drug kingpin, they often do have to rely on the testimony of mules or lower level dealers looking to either reduce their sentence or to receive immunity from prosecution. Also, you should look at what this evidence presented by Parnas includes. The e-mail from Jay Sekulow to John Dowd from October 2nd, clearly shows that Sekulow is telling Dowd that he discussed Lev Parnas's legal representation with Donald Trump, and that Trump consented to having Dowd represent Parnas. Putting all of the photographic evidence aside, that clearly shows that Trump was aware of who Lev Parnas was as far back as October 2nd. It also means that Trump is now lying.

Finally, why do you suppose it is that Trump has kept people of such low character in his orbit ? I'm talking about people such as Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Lev Parnas, Chris Collins and Robert Hyde? At what point does this start to reflect poorly on him ? Doesn't it say something about him that so many of his associates are looking at jail time (Collins and Parnas) or are already there (Manafort, Cohen, Gates) ?
 
#34,564
#34,564
BowlBrother85 said:
If you're referring to Lev Parnas, you should get your own facts straight before suggesting that someone else is "intellectually challenged". Lev Parnas has not been convicted of anything yet. He just stands accused of some campaign finance violations. As for your assertion "that evidence from a convicted felon looking to get his sentence reduced is not evidence" ? Well, that is just ignorant. It's called turning state's evidence and it happens all the time. For example, when prosecutors are trying to convict a drug kingpin, they often do have to rely on the testimony of mules or lower level dealers looking to either reduce their sentence or to receive immunity from prosecution. Also, you should look at what this evidence presented by Parnas includes. The e-mail from Jay Sekulow to John Dowd from October 2nd, clearly shows that Sekulow is telling Dowd that he discussed Lev Parnas's legal representation with Donald Trump, and that Trump consented to having Dowd represent Parnas. Putting all of the photographic evidence aside, that clearly shows that Trump was aware of who Lev Parnas was as far back as October 2nd. It also means that Trump is now lying.

Finally, why do you suppose it is that Trump has kept people of such low character in his orbit ? I'm talking about people such as Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Lev Parnas, Chris Collins and Robert Hyde? At what point does this start to reflect poorly on him ? Doesn't it say something about him that so many of his associates are looking at jail time (Collins and Parnas) or are already there (Manafort, Cohen, Gates) ?
Click to expand...

Campaign finance laws? Lol. He was indicted for trying to illegally funnel monies into political campaigns. Foreign Interference? I thought this was the most egregious thing a person could do. Go ahead keep riding with Ole Lev. You hacks have been proven wrong for 3 plus years one more will be nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and AM64
#34,565
#34,565
vols40 said:
Campaign finance laws? Lol. He was indicted for trying to illegally funnel monies into political campaigns. Foreign Interference? I thought this was the most egregious thing a person could do. Go ahead keep riding with Ole Lev. You hacks have been proven wrong for 3 plus years one more will be nothing.
Click to expand...
If you are saying that Parnas is a sleaze? I tend to agree. But why did Rudy Giuliani enlist his services as an associate? And why was the Trump Administration offering to lend White House counsel (John Dowd) to represent him?

I don't think that the word of Lev Parnas means very much, but that October 2nd e-mail from Jay Sekulow to John Dowd is still very hard for your side to innocently explain. Trump is simply lying when he says he doesn't know who Parnas is.
 
#34,570
#34,570
AM64 said:
Nope. Remember he's "impeached" ... not recommended for "impeachment". Your side found him guilty already ... before the "trial" - the verdict doesn't go away even if nothing comes of it. I guess strange things happen when you use a weird process of basically announcing guilt before attempting to determine guilt or innocence - maybe congress should look at amending things and using a better word like "indictment" so they don't go forward for all time with egg on their face. Regardless, your side rushed to judgment for political purposes ... live with it. If they don't like it, just dig a bigger hole and go for another impeachment ... go bold or go home.
Click to expand...
The impeachment is an indictment. Senate will hold the trial.
 
#34,572
#34,572
vols40 said:
Bill Aires ring a bell? Oh wait he was just some guy in the neighborhood. LMAO.
Click to expand...
It's Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground and he was never a member of the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign, or even in the Obama orbit during his time as President. Not applicable.
 
#34,573
#34,573
BowlBrother85 said:
It's Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground and he was never a member of the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign, or even in the Obama orbit during his time as President. Not applicable.
Click to expand...

So we are to overlook past ties to known terrorists? Got ya. Reverend Wright says hello
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,575
#34,575
BowlBrother85 said:
It's Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground and he was never a member of the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign, or even in the Obama orbit during his time as President. Not applicable.
Click to expand...
Ayers mentored a very young Barack Obama, and taught him how to make bombs and throw a baseball, when he was in the Weather Underground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top