Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


42 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

The Ds had time for over 2 weeks vacation at the end of the inquiry.  Then Nancy dilly dallied for what seemed like a month after the vote.  That's a lot of time for the Courts to rule on these issues that would clearly be fastracked.  But I understand.  Nadler said they already had overwhelming proof, so we can ignore last minute attempts to reboot the trial.

2 weeks over the holidays and you think the courts would have cleared up any subpoenas?  Oh boy, you clearly have very little knowledge about how the courts work.  
I’m afraid your continual use of falsehoods and your apparent general knowledge deficit of the subject matter has caused me to lose interest in continuing this little debate. 
You can have the last word if you wish, but I am finished discussing this with you. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

OK - let me let off steam for a moment:  :rant   :boxosoap:steam   

You know I hope the Dems nominate someone like Amy Klobuchar   - someone unexpected and squeaky clean (relative to Trump - I think she had some disgruntled staffers at one time or some story like that) - just to beat trump at his own game.  Yes, Amy may be an unrealistic nominee but she seems like the one with the smallest target on her back that Trump could attack or dig dirt up on.   I then hope that when he is kicked out of the WH by the voters that the FBI will immediately arrest him on orders of the NYSD for crimes such as these.    

Ok, back to reality world - I'm willing to vote for Bloomberg, Sanders, anyone if it means voting against Trump.  I cannot vote for any GOP Congressional representative this time around.   This may be the first time I vote straight Dem - just to send a message. It may not matter in Oklahoma but I can't put my x  on the ballot  as an endorsement to what my 2 senators, Inhofe and Langford, are doing.

Speaking of Amy, and I was above,  she is now in 3rd place in Iowa. 

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2020/primary/dem/iadem.html

 

Link to comment


I'm still trying to understand the argument against allowing witnesses to testify. All I see is, D's in the house should have done the leg work to get those witnesses to testify but they didn't. But as someone not married to either party and not balls deep in reading up on politics every day - I want to know what happened. Maybe I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work - but if this we're a murder trail, and we had 5 dudes who witnessed the alleged murder - shouldn't we hear what they have to say before we decide if laws were broke and what laws were broke? I wasn't old enough to follow the Clinton Impeachment, so maybe this is just how things work? Help me understand why anyone wouldn't want more information on how this went down?

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I'm still trying to understand the argument against allowing witnesses to testify. All I see is, D's in the house should have done the leg work to get those witnesses to testify but they didn't. But as someone not married to either party and not balls deep in reading up on politics every day - I want to know what happened. Maybe I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work - but if this we're a murder trail, and we had 5 dudes who witnessed the alleged murder - shouldn't we hear what they have to say before we decide if laws were broke and what laws were broke? I wasn't old enough to follow the Clinton Impeachment, so maybe this is just how things work? Help me understand why anyone wouldn't want more information on how this went down?

 

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

 

 

Edited by Huskerzoo
Double posted
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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