The Impeachment Thread

Mick

Mr. Orange
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
18,081
Likes
7,974
So let me see if I got this....

We’re in the trial portion of this circus and the prosecutors (House) want the jurors (Senate) to help them gather evidence that the prosecution didn’t feel was worth fighting for in a court of law because of their rush (political agenda) in getting the impeachment (indictment) articles signed in time to play on public opinion (political theater) due to the upcoming election.

In exactly how many trials around this country does the prosecution demand that the jurors help them gather evidence?

Are you, as the prosecution, not required anymore to present all the evidence that you relied on for the indictments to the jurors once the trial stage is reached?

What prosecutors in this country would rush into the trial phase without being fully prepared to move forward? (Besides apparently the House)

It’s a sham, perverts rule of law and is solely motivated by “orange man bad” partisan politics.

I hope the Senate requires the House to prove their case with only the “overwhelming” evidence they previously gathered and used for their indictments.
How many juries get to make the rules? Nice try though.
 

Septic

ヽ༼ ಠ益ಠ ༽ノ ( ఠ ͟ʖ ఠ)
Lab Rat
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
19,531
Likes
23,799
Lol I would never put you on ignore my dude . You amuse me . To be honest with you , the more you flail around trying to explain, the more amused I become . I can’t help it , it’s a character flaw I have . Like I said before I’ll try to tone it down ... just for you . Punkin ❤️
"Punkin"

Ehh, that's cringy.

You know, your pigeon strutting condescension would make a lot more sense if you were dishing it from a place of superiority. You aren't, you missed badly. Again.

I've stated it before, but you really do a lot of projecting. Take a break my dude, your game needs some work.
 

USAFgolferVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
753
Likes
230
So let me see if I got this....

We’re in the trial portion of this circus and the prosecutors (House) want the jurors (Senate) to help them gather evidence that the prosecution didn’t feel was worth fighting for in a court of law because of their rush (political agenda) in getting the impeachment (indictment) articles signed in time to play on public opinion (political theater) due to the upcoming election.

In exactly how many trials around this country does the prosecution demand that the jurors help them gather evidence?

Are you, as the prosecution, not required anymore to present all the evidence that you relied on for the indictments to the jurors once the trial stage is reached?

What prosecutors in this country would rush into the trial phase without being fully prepared to move forward? (Besides apparently the House)

It’s a sham, perverts rule of law and is solely motivated by “orange man bad” partisan politics.

I hope the Senate requires the House to prove their case with only the “overwhelming” evidence they previously gathered and used for their indictments.
The evidence doesn't have to be gathered. It's already there. It only needs to be sent to the Senate floor where all members can see it for themselves...and the American public.
If it were a sham, the Liar-in-Chief wouldn't be so desperately hiding it.
 

0nelilreb

Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
13,921
Likes
16,402
"Punkin"

Ehh, that's cringy.

You know, your pigeon strutting condescension would make a lot more sense if you were dishing it from a place of superiority. You aren't, you missed badly. Again.

I've stated it before, but you really do a lot of projecting. Take a break my dude, your game needs some work.
F4EEA936-95A5-413B-97B3-F4D2D75A0AD2.jpeg
 

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
59,717
Likes
33,549
this incident never endangered foreign policy - it was opportunism at worst. no policy decisions were being made or altered here.
You are minimizing, and you know it. It was a big deal for him to pull all the levers to make this happen. And his motives were for purely political gain to himself. So in terms of balancing the scales, it was of ZERO benefit to the country, but did create risk to our interests. So no, it can never be excused.


Dems wouldn't give 2 craps if one of their own had done it.
Now here I would agree with you.

But first, that doesn't make it ok. Just because the Dems have Trump in a "gotcha" moment doesn't mean that they are wrong about the gotcha.

Second, I honestly do not think a Rubio, a Bush, a Santorum, a Fiorino, or a Sanders, Biden, Warren, or Buttigieg would ever have done something like this, if for no other reason than had career personnel and close allies been warning them it was illegal.

Trump was told not to do it by a lot of people. I'll bet Bolton told him not to, directly. But Trump thinks he can talk his way out of anything, that he is so charismatic he can do what he wants.

When reality hits him about the limits of what people are willing to put up with from him, and he cannot get away with something, its going to be a nasty, nasty day for him.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
10,500
Likes
9,168
Final Impeachment vote spoiler alert....There won't be one GOP Senator to vote to remove Trump and Manchin will vote to acquit...final tally 54-46
If Romney could figure a way to dump Trump and be bumped to VP, he'd defect in a spit second ... most untrustworthy SOB the GOP has ever managed to put on a ballot.
 

DynaLo

'\_(o.O)_/`
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
1,607
Likes
2,968
The evidence doesn't have to be gathered. It's already there. It only needs to be sent to the Senate floor where all members can see it for themselves...and the American public.
If it were a sham, the Liar-in-Chief wouldn't be so desperately hiding it.
Really... then why is the House so desperately wanting the Senates assistance in getting witnesses to testify?

The House issued subpoenas which were taken to court to fight by the recipients and the House decided not to fight for it in court because of the time involved.(beyond time frame needed to sway public opinion in an election year)

If you have the grounds to fight against subpoenas, you fight them. It’s why a Motion to Quash is a beautiful thing.
 

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
59,717
Likes
33,549
If Romney could figure a way to dump Trump and be bumped to VP, he'd defect in a spit second ... most untrustworthy SOB the GOP has ever managed to put on a ballot.
He just adheres to 50 years' worth of GOP self-proclaimed values, but hasn't hitched his wagon on to the flavor of the month (Trump) so you hate him.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
10,500
Likes
9,168
He just adheres to 50 years' worth of GOP self-proclaimed values, but hasn't hitched his wagon on to the flavor of the month (Trump) so you hate him.
Nope, I view Romney as an opportunist, a destroyer, a corporate raider, etc ... a parasite. The guy who tears companies apart destroys them and sells off their assets for a profit. I despise his type; they don't fix, improve, they just destroy what someone else built and profit from the destruction. The ultimate in sleaze ... worthless piece of human trash - actually fitting for a politician perhaps.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top