Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not unconstitutional, and there is a precedent. These kinds of blatant lies have no place on this board.    

You're not that misinformed. You're just gaslighting.  It's what you do.  You know full well that an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  The requirements for conviction are not eve

to be fair...trumps lawyers could have sang baby shark for 3 hours and you and the rest of the trumpers would have said the same thing.  

Posted Images

Oh Good Lord.....Trump's lawyer keeps claiming this trial is trying to disenfranchise 74 million voters that voted for him.

 

Man I wish people weren't so stupid as to fall for that crap.  It's like he thinks nobody knows what disenfranchisement really is.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Oh Good Lord.....Trump's lawyer keeps claiming this trial is trying to disenfranchise 74 million voters that voted for him.

 

Man I wish people weren't so stupid as to fall for that crap.  It's like he thinks nobody knows what disenfranchisement really is.

That’s not what he is saying. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

He literally said what I said.  That the Democrats are trying to disenfranchise the 74 million voters that voted for Trump.

 

 

So they can’t vote for him again if he decided to run next time.  You left that part out.  

Link to post

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So they can’t vote for him again if he decided to run next time.  You left that part out.  

You don't understand disenfranchisement do you?

 

It doesn't mean that the law doesn't allow the person you want to vote for can't run so you can't vote for him. Heck...they can still even write him in.  There are lots of laws preventing someone from running for office.  What if I want to vote for someone who is 25 years old?  Am I disenfranchised because that person is not allowed to hold the office?  No.


This is nothing more than one more example of Republicans either being totally ignorant or pathetic snowflakes.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You don't understand disenfranchisement do you?

Just so you are aware, I’m not the lawyer at the impeachment trial.  I kinda assumed you knew that but I guess not.  I told you the argument HE is making for disenfranchisement.  HE was referring to 2024 and YOU were referring to 2020.   Take it up with him if you think he is wrong, not me.  

Link to post
1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Just so you are aware, I’m not the lawyer at the impeachment trial.  I kinda assumed you knew that but I guess not.  I told you the argument HE is making for disenfranchisement.  HE was referring to 2024 and YOU were referring to 2020.   Take it up with him if you think he is wrong, not me.  

His argument is BS and that's what I said.

  • Haha 1
Link to post

In this editorial, Peggy Noonan asks  a very pertinent question below. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-vote-to-acquit-is-a-vote-for-a-lie-11613084456
 

Quote

 

Here is a human question. I don’t understand why I haven’t heard a single story of a member who supported the president in refusing Electoral College certification, who stood with him, and who, hearing what was happening in the first stages of the riot, went into the halls to speak with the rioters. Why did they not do that? They knew there was a rally and expected a march, presumably peaceful. Why didn’t they go into the halls where the clamor was and tell the people, “Friends, I share your beliefs and am arguing for them on the floor, but what you are doing is wrong and unlawful, and you must leave.” Instead they were spirited from the floor by the police and hid in their offices and other rooms. Why didn’t they go out and speak to the crowds, their own people?

Is it that they didn’t actually understand their own people? Or, in barricading themselves in, were they showing they understood them all too well?

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

What a load of BS.  He's now trying to claim that Trump is a peace loving man who doesn't like violence.

 

Meanwhile, he has repeatedly promoted violence.  The key is, he loves it when it's for HIM.  He hates it when it's not.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Enhance said:

They do explain their position in the Article of Impeachment. It appears you simply disagree with their logic, which further does not justify your attempts to convolute the literal and legal differences between an impeachment and criminal trial.

 

Would it be correct/fair to say you don't believe "inciting violence against the Government of the United States" is justification enough to impeach a president, regardless of who said president is?

I'm pretty sure that inciting a riot would qualify as "other high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus be grounds for Impeachment if a POTUS actually did that.  I would want to some research on how the Founding Fathers understood the term first.  Of course it would have to be actual incitement and not the usual political rhetoric protected by the 1st Amendment. 

 

You seem to be very high on the  separation of powers in a Senate Trial.  So if your answer is, Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the Senate says they are; well fine but the Senate can be wrong.  Everyone knows the Senate was wrong when it said President Andrew Johnson committed OHC&M because he fired someone who worked in his White House.  Not everyone agrees the Senate was wrong that Bill Clinton lying in a civil deposition about whom he had sex with = OHC&M because many interested parties are still alive; and the same for Trump.  As time grows the distance, they will both be seen as a partisan feud just like Andrew Johnson. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

In this editorial, Peggy Noonan asks  a very pertinent question below. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-vote-to-acquit-is-a-vote-for-a-lie-11613084456
 

 

Tell Mz Noonan, that in addition to being sane, the Congressmen sheltered in their offices had the example of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler.  He tried to sell BLM/Antifa rioters on how much he was on their side. They did not buy it.

 

Under fire for how he handled protests, Portland mayor says he won't 'capitulate' to critics (nbcnews.com)

 

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler attacked, cursed at while dining out: reports | Fox News

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I'm pretty sure that inciting a riot would qualify as "other high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus be grounds for Impeachment if a POTUS actually did that.  I would want to some research on how the Founding Fathers understood the term first.  Of course it would have to be actual incitement and not the usual political rhetoric protected by the 1st Amendment. 

From my research, the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" has long been controversial. Historically speaking, it sounds like Republicans and Democrats usually accuse one another of misunderstanding what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanor' during an impeachment trial. I'm glad we at least agree inciting violence against the federal government would qualify, even if we disagree on whether or not Trump did it.

 

Quote

You seem to be very high on the  separation of powers in a Senate Trial.  So if your answer is, Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the Senate says they are; well fine but the Senate can be wrong. 

I don't think it's whatever the Senate says it is is, but objectively speaking, I do think this accusation qualifies as a 'high crime and misdemeanor' at face value. And you said you do, too. But, you're attaching this bizarre qualifier of "only if a POTUS actually did that." It's a conflicting argument IMO. In one hand, it's OK to be impeached for inciting violence against the U.S. government; in the other hand, it's only OK if they did it.

 

A lot of people do think he did it, so, that's kind of the point isn't it? Obviously, you're welcome to believe he's innocent, but that doesn't render the accusation in and of itself baseless.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...