Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Huh, nothing - thanks to the GOP

 

No, the GOP bailed Trump out AND the Democrats tapped out before witnesses became a thing.  There is no reason to only point the finger one way if you were expecting a conviction.

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

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 post
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 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
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 post

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 post
20 minutes ago, ZRod said:

followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

Insert 2016 for 2020 and you just described Raskin, an Impeachment Manager no less

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

And who wrote it?

This is completely irrelevant.  There was a bipartisan vote to approve the articles, and Senators from both sides voted to convict.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

9 minutes ago, ZRod said:

This is completely irrelevant.  There was a bipartisan vote to approve the articles, and Senators from both sides voted to convict.

 

It absolutely is not

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

It absolutely is not

Then why does it matter?

 

And do the articles specifically cite a body of work outside of the events of January 6th?

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
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 post
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 post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...