Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I'm not being snide. Stop taking offense at me asking you to inform yourself. You should really read the text your own government wrote. Be an informed citizen. I promise it will hardly take any of your time.

 

I have yet to take offense to anything posted in here in the last couple days.  You're making many implications that I just don't know what I'm talking about, hence the snide comment.  That's fine and to be fair I have not delved deep into this impeachment trial because the outcome I expected is the outcome that happened.  Absolutely nothing, another asterisk and the continuation of the outrage that started in 2016.

 

Here's what I do know:

 

-Trump was aquitted and the evidence was much like the last trials evidence, very very weak and open to interpretation

Link to post

  • 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

2 hours ago, Redux said:

Evidence including doctored tweets

 

:lol:

 

 

If only people who exonerate trump spent even a tenth the amount of time looking as critically at him as they do at the evidence against him.

 

Tweets were deleted from twitter, but available (and the text verifiable by anyone who would bother to try) so for the graphic they accidentally added a blue check to the rebuilt tweet.

 

I mean... if your "evidence" for claiming trump was innocent is someone ganked up a graphic... Hoo boy are you reaching.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, ZRod said:

What is the correct charge?

I don’t know that there was one from a legal sense.  Maybe failure to carry out duties after the riot started?  Whatever that falls under.  It certainly wasn’t incitement 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Redux said:

Nothing you just said is accurate.  LOL "accidentally added".  That's like the ole "I'm sorry honey I slipped and fell and she was just there!"

 

Rock

 

Solid

 

Case

 

You think a blue checkmark destroys the entire case?

 

LOL

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

Just now, Redux said:

 

You're the one who made that distinction

 

 

And you've latched onto it. Four times. And the evidence you've presented that it isn't is...

 

A BLUE CHECK MARK!!!  :lol:

 

LOL

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

And you've latched onto it. Four times. And the evidence you've presented that it isn't is...

 

A BLUE CHECK MARK!!!  :lol:

 

LOL

 

 

I find your distinction funny because the case was clearly anything but rock solid.  Now you're pretending like I said Twitter nonsense was the smoking gun that aquitted Trump.  Keep going though by all means.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Just now, Redux said:

 

I find your distinction funny because the case was clearly anything but rock solid.  Now you're pretending like I said Twitter nonsense was the smoking gun that aquitted Trump.  Keep going though by all means.

 

What other evidence did you provide?

Link to post
30 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I have yet to take offense to anything posted in here in the last couple days.  You're making many implications that I just don't know what I'm talking about, hence the snide comment.  That's fine and to be fair I have not delved deep into this impeachment trial because the outcome I expected is the outcome that happened.  Absolutely nothing, another asterisk and the continuation of the outrage that started in 2016.

 

Here's what I do know:

 

-Trump was aquitted and the evidence was much like the last trials evidence, very very weak and open to interpretation

If you're calling me snide I'm I only going to assume you're offended, because it's a pretty negative word.

 

I was genuinely encouraging you to read up because your opinion doesn't seem well informed, and no offense, but you have a history of speaking off the cuff with out a lot of detailed thought.

 

I really hope you read the articles and watch the video. The video does a good job of trying to argue the point from both sides, it really is worth a watch if you truly are interested in some of the leagalease.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The expected non-answer.

 

Because I'm not on trial, nor is anyone here.  I don't have to provide evidence of anything.  The outcome verifies my stance.  It's really that simple.  The Dems had something to hide, Mitch is a snake, the whole premise was assumption based again and the asterisk was the low bar.  Thabk you for playing.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...