Impeachment Trial of The Don

[oldngray]

Seriously--is anyone actually watching this? What a waste of time.

I flipped past it a couple of times. Unwatchable.

 

[newfie]

Why not the ones the President blocked?

Because the house could have gone to the courts.

It's kind of like the streets. Just because the cops don't like going to court does not mean they can administer their own justice.

 

[newfie]

Lol. How can that matter if he is factually right and Dershowitz is factually wrong?

Desperate for an argument much?

 

[newfie]

I criticize his lies, I question his motives and I despise his personality.

So you root for a lying bug eyed prosecutor instead.

 

[It will be fine]

Because the house could have gone to the courts.

It's kind of like the streets. Just because the cops don't like going to court does not mean they can administer their own justice.

This is such a strange argument. The House decided there was enough evidence to indict the president. It doesn’t make much sense for the Senate to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend like there isn’t more evidence available. If the senate wants to judge the truth they should gather all available facts and evidence. To do otherwise is to facilitate a cover up regardless of this flimsy excuse.

 

[vantexan]

This is such a strange argument. The House decided there was enough evidence to indict the president. It doesn’t make much sense for the Senate to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend like there isn’t more evidence available. If the senate wants to judge the truth they should gather all available facts and evidence. To do otherwise is to facilitate a cover up regardless of this flimsy excuse.

If the Dems had enough evidence to impeach why do they need more evidence? Surely the evidence presented is enough to remove the president?

 

[Sportello]

If the Dems had enough evidence to impeach why do they need more evidence? Surely the evidence presented is enough to remove the president?

He already has been impeached. The evidence to remove is overwhelming.

It was a nice Republic while it lasted.

 

[vantexan]

He already has been impeached. The evidence to remove is overwhelming.

It was a nice Republic while it lasted.

For what crime exactly?

 

[It will be fine]

If the Dems had enough evidence to impeach why do they need more evidence? Surely the evidence presented is enough to remove the president?

I believe there is enough evidence to remove him. The majority of Americans agree with that assessment. Further evidence would move that number farther towards the remove column. More evidence is unearthed daily, not examining it has no justifiable reason.

 

[vantexan]

I believe there is enough evidence to remove him. The majority of Americans agree with that assessment. Further evidence would move that number farther towards the remove column. More evidence is unearthed daily, not examining it has no justifiable reason.

Evidence of what crime exactly? A real crime?

 

[It will be fine]

Evidence of what crime exactly? A real crime?

He used taxpayer money to pressure a foreign government to interfere in our election. I don’t care if that’s specifically listed anywhere in US criminal code, it’s a crime.

 

[vantexan]

He used taxpayer money to pressure a foreign government to interfere in our election. I don’t care if that’s specifically listed anywhere in US criminal code, it’s a crime.

It's neither listed in the U.S. criminal code nor in the articles of impeachment. So tell me again what crime he's on trial for? By the way the GAO found seven instances that the Obama administration broke the law. Should Obama have been impeached?

 

[It will be fine]

It's neither listed in the U.S. criminal code nor in the articles of impeachment. So tell me again what crime he's on trial for? By the way the GAO found seven instances that the Obama administration broke the law. Should Obama have been impeached?

Did Obama do it to influence an election? Why can’t Trump try and win fair and square? He’s a loser, that’s why.

 

[vantexan]

Did Obama do it to influence an election? Why can’t Trump try and win fair and square? He’s a loser, that’s why.

Trump did nothing but ask the Ukrainian president to look into Biden's corruption. And when did impeachment have to be solely about elections anyways? A crime is a crime. And I didn't say Obama committed a crime, I said his administration broke the law.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I believe there is enough evidence to remove him.
The majority of Americans agree with that assessment.

How about 67% ... that's what is needed. LOL

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Did Obama do it to influence an election?
Why can’t Trump try and win fair and square?
He’s a loser, that’s why.

As he kicks your's and all the other LibTurds' asses!
All this winning is almost as boring as the House Managers spiel in the Impeachment trial.

.
.​

 

[rod]

I haven't had the TV on yet today.

 

[Box Ox]

I haven't had the TV on yet today.

It's beyond boring. Just Schiff on repeat.

 

[bbsam]

Just fishing for some little fishy bites.
I would think you would know better than to try and control what you can't!

I’m seriously asking you. Does he fit your definition or not?

 

[bbsam]

It's neither listed in the U.S. criminal code nor in the articles of impeachment. So tell me again what crime he's on trial for? By the way the GAO found seven instances that the Obama administration broke the law. Should Obama have been impeached?

That is a very weak argument. It’s lawyer talk and if republicans use it on the campaign trail, they’ll get slaughtered for it.