Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Any prosecutor who hid witnesses and made up his own crime wouldn't even get an indictment.  Wouldn't it be a great day for the judiciary if Roberts simply dismissed the charges?  I don't know if that can happen.

And defendants who defy subpoenas end up in jail.  Wouldn’t that also be a great day, Joe?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

6 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Any prosecutor who hid witnesses and made up his own crime wouldn't even get an indictment.  Wouldn't it be a great day for the judiciary if Roberts simply dismissed the charges?  I don't know if that can happen.

WITSEC doesn't work when the person you are testifying against is POTUS

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

They're doing their constitutional job?  I don't understand why people think it's a waste of time.  They've sworn an oath to do this job and people wonder why they're doing this job?

 

Well...

 

1. Because the Senate Majority leader has already stated that his goal is not to look at the case objectively (see appearance on Fox 'News' yesterday)

 

2. Because the House Republicans have yet to argue the facts of the case and are arguing process only.

 

3. Because if Senate/House Republicans were serious about their oaths, they'd be looking at this objectively and not in a partisan way.

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

9 minutes ago, alexhortdog95 said:

 

Well...

 

1. Because the Senate Majority leader has already stated that his goal is not to look at the case objectively (see appearance on Fox 'News' yesterday)

 

2. Because the House Republicans have yet to argue the facts of the case and are arguing process only.

 

3. Because if Senate/House Republicans were serious about their oaths, they'd be looking at this objectively and not in a partisan way.

 

 

 

The reason is because it's a big showboat for their voters and the dear leader.  If they show him they are fighting for him, he will be nice to them.

 

The Republican's outrage last night was the biggest show boat I've seen (outside of the daily Trump) in a very long time.  What a joke.

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The reason is because it's a big showboat for their voters and the dear leader.  If they show him they are fighting for him, he will be nice to them.

 

The Republican's outrage last night was the biggest show boat I've seen (outside of the daily Trump) in a very long time.  What a joke.

 

True that.  I will admit, however - Doug Collins is a much better advocate for the president than Farmer Devin was, hahahahaha

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

And defendants who defy subpoenas end up in jail.  Wouldn’t that also be a great day, Joe?

You've heard of 'contempt of court.'  SCOTUS will hear a case on the [obvious politically motivated] subpoena of Trump's tax returns.  In no way is Trump or anyone in jeopardy for arguing their rights in a court of law. 

Link to comment

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

You've heard of 'contempt of court.'  SCOTUS will hear a case on the [obvious politically motivated] subpoena of Trump's tax returns.  In no way is Trump or anyone in jeopardy for arguing their rights in a court of law. 

Oh you mean the tax returns he promised to release to the public, as every President has done since Nixon, yet still hasn't? Are those the tax returns you are referring to?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

You've heard of 'contempt of court.'  SCOTUS will hear a case on the [obvious politically motivated] subpoena of Trump's tax returns.  In no way is Trump or anyone in jeopardy for arguing their rights in a court of law. 

 

Going to go ahead and assume you would've applauded Hillary's State Department issuing a blanket refusal to cooperate and going to the courts, while trying to work SCOTUS on her Twitter feed, in order to prevent Congress from doing any oversight or the public from knowing anything about Benghazi or her emails.

 

You must've been gobsmacked when she - gasp - actually showed up to testify (for 8 hours) when subpoenaed, being the fierce advocate of individual liberties and skeptic of Congressional harassment you are.

 

Sound about right?

 

(It must suck to be a Trump supporter and know in your heart of heart that Hillary Clinton of all people has more balls than Trump.)

  • Plus1 6
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Going to go ahead and assume you would've applauded Hillary's State Department issuing a blanket refusal to cooperate and going to the courts, while trying to work SCOTUS on her Twitter feed, in order to prevent Congress from doing any oversight or the public from knowing anything about Benghazi or her emails.

 

You must've been gobsmacked when she - gasp - actually showed up to testify (for 8 hours) when subpoenaed, being the fierce advocate of individual liberties and skeptic of Congressional harassment you are.

 

Sound about right?

 

(It must suck to be a Trump supporter and know in your heart of heart that Hillary Clinton of all people has more balls than Trump.)

@Notre Dame Joe

 

just wanted to tag you again to make sure you saw this :thumbs

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, commando said:

 

ELv8X7yWsAAd2co.jpg

 

 

 

Glad you posted that as I came by to share what I'm listening to during Army-Navy commercials.

 

A "Jerrold Nadler" is chastising Congress for equating "sins" with "crimes" and, not all crimes are "high crimes."

 

The channel is called C-SPAN, show is "Clinton Impeachment."  We could all benefit from watching just a few minutes of this mirror universe.

 

+ now Representative Charles Schumer lecturing us on how the "punishment must fit the crime" and Censure is the appropriate remedy for a Presidential low crime.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

 

Glad you posted that as I came by to share what I'm listening to during Army-Navy commercials.

 

A "Jerrold Nadler" is chastising Congress for equating "sins" with "crimes" and, not all crimes are "high crimes."

 

The channel is called C-SPAN, show is "Clinton Impeachment."  We could all benefit from watching just a few minutes of this mirror universe.

 

+ now Representative Charles Schumer lecturing us on how the "punishment must fit the crime" and Censure is the appropriate remedy for a Presidential low crime.

i was a hard core republican at that time.   and even i thought impeaching a president for having sex was stupid.   by that standard we probably should have impeached most of our presidents.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...