BigRedBuster Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Moiraine said: They could have convicted him. Yes...they could have. But....Moscow Mitch protected them from having to do that. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, Moiraine said: They could have convicted him. Which means they were all cowards and opportunists & hypocrites - thinking they needed to ride on Trump's coat tails a little longer - even if they didn't like the driver. I wonder how many if any regretted their non-conviction vote after they saw the way Trump handled the Covid crisis & causing his coat tail to not being such a comfortable ride after all. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: Chicken s#!ts!!! Can't make the cult angry. Starts to make one wonder if Carl is making up sources and embellishing to stay relevant. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Yes...they could have. But....Moscow Mitch protected them from having to do that. Noted Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says otherwise. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Ben Sasse released a statement condemning Trump post election. We all know were Mitt Romney stands. Murkowski said some things like "hopefully he'll learn" in public, I wouldn't be surprised if her comments in private were a little more charismatic. I wouldn't rush to assume Bernstein is lying or making up sources. It's makes more sense to not trust the people who only 5 short years ago were calling Trump the worst candidate ever and thinking of new ways to convey that to the public on the daily, but now think he's the best President ever... 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Noted Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says otherwise. What does this even mean? The Senate absolutely could have convicted Trump. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, RedDenver said: What does this even mean? The Senate absolutely could have convicted Trump. A wrongful conviction would not have made sense. 1 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: A wrongful conviction would not have made sense. Bringing up a Constitutional scholar makes no sense in this context. It's completely Constitutional for the Senate to have voted in any way they saw fit including convicting Trump. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, RedDenver said: Bringing up a Constitutional scholar makes no sense in this context. It's completely Constitutional for the Senate to have voted in any way they saw fit including convicting Trump. Seems like they agreed with Turley and voted Against a sham impeachment. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Noted Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says otherwise. That means nothing. I could find an "expert" that says anything. Fact is, Moscow Mitch and the other Republican Senators stated long before even the House hearings that they WOULD NOT convict Trump no matter what. They went into the hearings like.... That doesn't mean Trump was innocent. That means he had friends who protected him. 2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Seems like they agreed with Turley and voted Against a sham impeachment. no 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Archy1221 said: Seems like they agreed with Turley and voted Against a sham impeachment. Which again has nothing to do with the original post that the Senate could have convicted Trump. When you bring up a Constitutional scholar, you usually have some type of legal claim about the Constitution. In this case, Turley is just another lawyer with an opinion about the merits of Trump's impeachment. His Constitutional expertise has no bearing. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: That means nothing. I could find an "expert" that says anything. Fact is, Moscow Mitch and the other Republican Senators stated long before even the House hearings that they WOULD NOT convict Trump no matter what. They went into the hearings like.... That doesn't mean Trump was innocent. That means he had friends who protected him. no It means they heard the evidence and found Trump to be not guilty of the charges and voted no on the articles of impeachment. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Archy1221 said: It means they heard the evidence and found Trump to be not guilty of the charges and voted no on the articles of impeachment. How did they hear the evidence? Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 34 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Which again has nothing to do with the original post that the Senate could have convicted Trump. When you bring up a Constitutional scholar, you usually have some type of legal claim about the Constitution. In this case, Turley is just another lawyer with an opinion about the merits of Trump's impeachment. His Constitutional expertise has no bearing. Sure they COULD have convicted Trump similar to juries COULD convict an innocent man, but they chose to follow the evidence and vote not to convict. They followed the law which I’m surprised you are against that. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said: How did they hear the evidence? Impeachment managers and read what was put into the record 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts