Jump to content


Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts


17 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Ok. I would love to have this conversation in 4 years.

 

Oh I'm sure we will but the narrative will be different by then.

 

You're convinced the words he spoke were an incitement.  I put them into black and white.  Call it toeing the line, but verbatim the words were not an incitement because of that interpretation being far too loose based off of what was actually said.  Body of work is not an argument in this instance either.  End of story, he was aquitted.  Point fingers at whoever you want to blame, it will not change anything.  It was another weak case, the results reflect that.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, ZRod said:

When does a poor choice of words no longer become defensible? For 5 or 6 years that's been the go to excuse. At this point I don't think it's a reflection on choices, but the person's character, morales, and ethics.

Apparently for Biden it takes longer than 35 years 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Oh I'm sure we will but the narrative will be different by then.

 

You're convinced the words he spoke were an incitement.  I put them into black and white.  Call it toeing the line, but verbatim the words were not an incitement because of that interpretation being far too loose based off of what was actually said.  Body of work is not an argument in this instance either.  End of story, he was aquitted.  Point fingers at whoever you want to blame, it will not change anything.  It was another weak case, the results reflect that.

Please read the articles of impeachment. You literally do not know what you are talking about. I've even picked out the relevant parts here for you, and provided you a link to a copy of the document. The body of work is very much relevant as it's cited specifically in the Articles.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection

Quote

In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.

 

Quote

President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Please read the articles of impeachment. You literally do not know what you are talking about. I've even out the relevant parts here for you. The body of work is very much relevant as it's cited specifically in the Articles.

 

And who wrote that?

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Why won't you answer?

Because you're creating a strawman argument to deflect from the fact that the articles of impeachment cite events outside of January 6th as part of their grounds for impeachment, something you specifically said was not relevant to the impeachment trial.

 

The Democrats wrote the articles. They were approved by a majority in Congress consisting of Yea votes from both parties, and the Senate trial received the most votes for conviction from the impeached's party in the entire history of the US.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Because you're creating a strawman argument to deflect from the fact that the articles of impeachment cite events outside of January 6th as part of their grounds for impeachment, something you specifically said was not relevant to the impeachment trial.

 

The Democrats wrote the articles. They were approved by a majority in Congress consisting of Yea votes from both parties, and the Senate trial received the most votes for conviction from the impeached's party in the entire history of the US.

 

WAIT, THE DEMS WROTE IT!  AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THE WAY THEY'VE WRITTEN IT IS UNFLATTERING?!  My word!  I'm.......flabbergasted!

 

Wrong, I'm asking a simple question.  Your refusal to answer is because the same group voting to impeach are the ones who influenced the wording that you're citing.  It would be like asking knapp to give me a performance revue.  It's not a strawman, it's relevant to the situation.

 

The articles approval and the process of impeachment are irrelevant after the fact he was aquitted.  The Dems got their asterisk, Mitch got to have his cake and eat it too, and nothing will come from this.....again.

 

I'm putting this to rest.  The Dems had a weak case, the outcome reflects that.  End of story.

 

If they had as much integrity as being suggested they would have gone forward with witnesses.  This could have been a conviction, all be it a pointless one other than an attempt to prevent him from running in 2024.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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