The Impeachment Thread

[37L1]

Only one side is attempting to bury the truth.

Balderdash.

Damn, you are going to make me wear that word out.

 

[volfanjustin]

Any discussion about what the House did or didn't do relating to impeachment is completely moot at this point. Such defense is 100% smokescreen.

The Senate is in charge.

It can accept House evidence or reject it outright. It can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Whether you think Trump was ramrodded in the House makes absolutely ZERO difference right now.

If the Senate wants to hold a real trial and determine material facts, it can.

But, of course, it lacks the political will. Why? GOP Senators know the truth. They recognize what Trump did is wrong. But, for the good of their party, they're gonna look the other way.

Net result: Trump has a free pass. AND... so do future Democratic Presidents.

This is what YOU wanted. Our President acted corruptly, and you defended it. Remember that down the line.

View attachment 255992

It makes a huge difference, the leftists like Schiff set the rules, set the witnesses and wouldn't let the Rs have any say
It's the adults turn. Screw $hitty schiff and the rest of the dems
And when the Rs impeach a dem over nothing, remember this what YOU wanted.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'll take that bet and you're going to regret because I'm the ....................

......dumbest in the land?

 

[hog88]

Say it with me. Roberts would have an impact on how quickly the issues made it through the court system.
There were no requests for the submission of additional pertinent evidence and testimony refused during the Clinton trial.

Why did Nancy withhold sending the articles of impeachment?

No he wouldn't. Roberts isn't all powerful, and contested subpoena would still have to work it's way through the courts. Even if Roberts made a unilateral ruling it could be appealed to the full SCOTUS.

McConnell is using almost exactly the same rules as were used during the Clinton trial, where decisions on additional witnesses and evidence were made after the opening arguments. And in Clinton's trial, no additional witnesses or evidence was presented.

She wanted to grandstand and wrongfully thought she could pressure Mitch into capitulating to her demands.

 

[evillawyer]

Only one side went all partisan and impeached . Meh

Suppose a prosecutor really wants to get a person for something. Now suppose that person just happens to commit a double murder. Does that person get a get out of jail card because the prosecutor was looking for something to get the guy on?

 

[hog88]

The House lacks ability to CONVICT. Ergo, really, they have no real power. So, who cares what they did or didn't do?

The Senate does have power. And the power to hold a real trial.

The house conducted the investigation and decided to impeach.

 

[MWR]

Balderdash.

Dare I say "Poppycock"?

 

[Orangeburst]

well spending has already increased so there is no assumption being made. It's established fact. Dems aren't cutting SS so I'm not sure who is now making unrealistic assumptions. Repubs are however

Small changes look good and can be applauded but unless there is an overall decrease it's pretty meaningless. That is unlikely to happen from a guy who admitted he doesn't care about a budget.

You consider restructuring of entitlements “small changes”.
You lose any credibility to discuss the deficit.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The house conducted the investigation and decided to impeach.

Seems that since it is such a somber and serious matter they wouldn't have done so with any doubt and no evidence. It shouldn't NEED any clarification by witnesses I would think... You know... being somber and serious.

But at least Nancy had some commemorative pens made up for the somber and serious matter.

 

[37L1]

Dare I say "Poppycock"?

Excellent!

 

[0nelilreb]

Suppose a prosecutor really wants to get a person for something. Now suppose that person just happens to commit a double murder. Does that person get a get out of jail card because the prosecutor was looking for something to get the guy on?

What I supposed is , if he were being tried by a group of politicians that had the power to set their on rules based on majority vote ... they could do what they wanted . You are still trying to argue court of law vs political rules .

 

[37L1]

The house conducted the investigation and decided to impeach.

The House decided to impeach and then conducted an "investigation."

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Any discussion about what the House did or didn't do relating to impeachment is completely moot at this point. Such defense is 100% smokescreen.

The Senate is in charge.

It can accept House evidence or reject it outright. It can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Whether you think Trump was ramrodded in the House makes absolutely ZERO difference right now.

If the Senate wants to hold a real trial and determine material facts, it can.

But, of course, it lacks the political will. Why? GOP Senators know the truth. They recognize what Trump did is wrong. But, for the good of their party, they're gonna look the other way.

Net result: Trump has a free pass. AND... so do future Democratic Presidents.

This is what YOU wanted, Trumpsters. Our President acted corruptly, and you defended it. Remember that down the line.

View attachment 255992

LMFAO. Everything you post it's the Democratics way or there's no other way that will be allowed to stand.....you're still crying liberal tears & wanting things to turn out like what you want them to.......crybaby Dems are the worst people on planet Earth...... LMFAO.

 

[luthervol]

No he wouldn't. Roberts isn't all powerful, and contested subpoena would still have to work it's way through the courts. Even if Roberts made a unilateral ruling it could be appealed to the full SCOTUS.

She wanted to grandstand and wrongfully thought she could pressure Mitch into capitulating to her demands.

Which contradicts your previous statement that she knew exactly what Mitch would do. She didn't.
She thought the Senate would provide at least the semblance of a fair trial.
When Mitch publicly stated there would be nothing even remotely resembling a fair trial, that's when she withheld.

 

[luthervol]

Suppose a prosecutor really wants to get a person for something. Now suppose that person just happens to commit a double murder. Does that person get a get out of jail card because the prosecutor was looking for something to get the guy on?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence at this point to the red hatters. I think 90% of them know that Trump is guilty. Trump has manipulated them completely into only focusing on the us vs. them game.

 

[hog88]

Which contradicts your previous statement that she knew exactly what Mitch would do. She didn't.
She thought the Senate would provide at least the semblance of a fair trial.
When Mitch publicly stated there would be nothing even remotely resembling a fair trial, that's when she withheld.

She did know exactly what Mitch would do and held the impeachment paperwork trying to pressure him into doing what SHE wanted him to do.

They are holding a fair trial unless you think Clinton didn't receive a fair trial.

 

[utvolpj]

You consider restructuring of entitlements “small changes”.
You lose any credibility to discuss the deficit.

Even with "restructuring" (lol) the deficit will increase. Pandering changes while the net result is still a sizable increase are essentially worthless. The potus has stated he does not care about the deficit so trying to sell that as his reasoning is a lie. You're making stuff up

 

[37L1]

Only one side is attempting to bury the truth.

That's all you got in response? Only one side is wrapping themselves up in "truth" without having searched for it in the proper manner.

The House should have done the job of finding it in a complete and fair way. They didn't.

Why?

Because it's political. It has nothing to do with "truth" it has everything to do with power.

 

[37L1]

Even with "restructuring" (lol) the deficit will increase. Pandering changes while the net result is still a sizable increase are essentially worthless. The potus has stated he does not care about the deficit so trying to sell that as his reasoning is a lie. You're making stuff up

Who in Washington really cares enough about the deficit to do something abut it? One, maybe two, or a couple more?

 

[0nelilreb]

It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence at this point to the red hatters. I think 90% of them know that Trump is guilty. Trump has manipulated them completely into only focusing on the us vs. them game.

Not for me , Trump plays little into that equation himself . The 3 solid years of nonstop bashing , wailing , screeching , crying , the world will end , the sky is falling , our democracy is at stake , he is Hitler , and my favorite .. we need to show the world we are still good little globalists is what caused me personally to dig in .

 

[utvolpj]

Who in Washington really cares enough about the deficit to do something abut it? One, maybe two, or a couple more?

It was a major promise made by Trump. I believe here even says it would be done easily

I don't believe there are many who want to do anything about it. That's why it's funny when people pretend there are lots who are trying

 

[hog88]

It was a major promise made by Trump. I believe here even says it would be done easily

I don't believe there are many who want to do anything about it. That's why it's funny when people pretend there are lots who are trying

Nobody is trying to do anything about the debt or deficit.

 

[Orangeburst]

It was a major promise made by Trump. I believe here even says it would be done easily

I don't believe there are many who want to do anything about it. That's why it's funny when people pretend there are lots who are trying

Says the guy who voted for a guy who almost doubled the budget in 8 years. You are as FOS as the politicians

 

[utvolpj]

Says the guy who voted for a guy who almost doubled the budget in 8 years. You are as FOS as the politicians

It's becoming clear that numbers and research aren't quite your thing.

The guy you support actually says he doesn't care about the budget. Why do you continue to try ande convince people he does?

 

[37L1]

It's becoming clear that numbers and research aren't quite your thing.

The guy you support actually says he doesn't care about the budget. Why do you continue to try ande convince people he does?

Who really has?