Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

Interesting thing about this.     Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

  In American justice it's absolutely illegal for the judge and jury to go out and do their own investigations. 

In American justice new witnesses and evidence is brought into courtrooms on a daily basis by prosecutors or even by the defense. It is common practice to review new information and testimony as a trial is a search for the truth therefor if any new information can be made available to the court it will be made available 

Link to post
10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

The important facts of this 'case' are all already known.  We know what $$ was supposed to go to the UKR, when it was delayed, when they got it, and what Trump said to them.  The only interesting question was the legal definition of "other high crimes and misdemeanors" for which you need a college degree worth of background just to base a decent opinion.

 

 

Technically, you just need a Twitter account and a sense of decency. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Well Joe said you'd need a background in order to form your opinion, and I think the President's 17,000 unfiltered tweets should be enough.

 

If not, there's more.

True. I just mentioned it because I don’t have Twitter, but I’ve listened to Trumps rambling.  
 

 

Link to post

It's funny that some would complain that it takes knowledge and education to understand the laws of our country, yet they're willing to elect a man to the highest office who has no working knowledge of those laws, and they will blindly defend him when he violates those laws. It's even more perplexing that they would choose to ignore the constitutional scholars who testified in the house to educate us on those laws.

 

What an odd bunch of people.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, QMany said:

After 200+ pages of the lies and deflection, @Notre Dame Joe now concedes the facts and wrongdoing but tries to argue its not impeachable. It was the inevitable, unethical Trump defense playbook. 

 

I'll concede it was sloppy.  The transcript, more or less, speaks for itself.  The Ds were sloppy too.  Once the transcript of the phone call was released they had no case and should have let it stay on CNN scandal of the week.

 

8 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

In American justice new witnesses and evidence is brought into courtrooms on a daily basis by prosecutors or even by the defense. It is common practice to review new information and testimony as a trial is a search for the truth therefor if any new information can be made available to the court it will be made available 

 

Judges are sometimes lenient but the law says that evidence held back for surprise at trial will get excluded from the trial.  

 

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Well Joe said you'd need a background in order to form your opinion, and I think the President's 17,000 unfiltered tweets should be enough.

 

If not, there's more.

Good example.  Some people say the President can be impeached for hate speech on twitter.  If the House tries that you don't call witnesses from Twitter, but instead say "not other HCOMs" and acquit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

 

Judges are sometimes lenient but the law says that evidence held back for surprise at trial will get excluded from the trial.  

 

 

Only problem with this statement is Boltons testimony wasn't being held back for surprise. New witnesses come forward and are willing to testify after they maybe weren't willing to speak with police before all of the time. If a new fact witness becomes available they can and should testify 

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...