Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts

11 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.

 

Well, yeah, but the Democrats wrote them so all your other points are moot!  :rolleyes:

  • Plus1 1
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

3 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

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.

Your logic is illogical

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Well, yeah, but the Democrats wrote them so all your other points are moot!  :rolleyes:

Maybe Charles Mansion shouldn't have been convicted because the prosecutor wrote the charges against him.

Maybe his cohorts in crime should have written up the charges to be fair.  

 

Yes, we should have left it up to the GOP to do the right thing and write up the articles of impeachment. 

still waiting. ...

giphy.gif

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I'm sure you feel that way

 

Please don't flatter yourself 

Look... I've shown you that, yes, the articles did include Trump's acts/words outside of January 6th so they were relevant. Something you deny, but in reality was a major part of the trial.

 

I've agreed that Congressional Democrats wrote the articles of impeachment, as is constitutionally required (Congress has the sole power to impeach). It doesn't matter who writes them, if they hit the floor and are voted on it's entirely irrelevant. End of story.

 

I've shown you that the Senate minority leader believes Trump is guilty, but voted to aquit. Meaning that the votes cast we're not based on guilt or innocence, but on non-existent "technicalities". Which also conflicts with your grievances about Democrats writing the articles in good faith.

 

If you were as concerned with Trump and GOP integrity as you claim to be with Democratic integrity then you would support the impeachment and conviction of Trump. It's clear that integrity doesn't actually matter to you unless it fits the agenda you support.

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
Just now, ZRod said:

Look... I've shown you that, yes, the articles did include Trump's acts/words outside of January 6th so they were relevant. Something you deny, but in reality was a major part of the trial.

 

I've agreed that Congressional Democrats wrote the articles of impeachment, as is constitutionally required (Congress has the sole power to impeach). It doesn't matter who writes them, if they hit the floor and are voted on it's entirely irrelevant. End of story.

 

I've shown you that the Senate minority leader believes Trump is guilty, but voted to aquit. Meaning that the votes cast we're not based on guilt or innocence, but on non-existent "technicalities". Which also conflicts with your grievances about Democrats writing the articles in good faith.

 

If you were as concerned with Trump and GOP integrity as you claim to be with Democratic integrity then you would support the impeachment and conviction of Trump. It's clear that integrity doesn't actually matter to you unless it fits the agenda you support.

 

The articles could have included allegations of kicking a puppy in 1988, it still doesn't matter.  His body of work as a whole has been under fire since before there was a body of work to critique.

 

Yes and that is WHY impeachment is more political theater than actual trial.  Again, the ones moving to impeach wrote them to paint him ugly.  This isn't shocking and didn't get a conviction, so it's proof of nothing.

 

Mitch sucks, I've never disagreed with this.  Be mad at the refusal to go through with witnesses though, as I've mentioned many times.

 

Maybe they should have done a better job the first time and this wouldn't even be a problem today?  I don't care if you question my integrity.  You're questioning it has zero impact on anything being discussed here.  Much like the articles of Impeachment had on actually convicting.  The Dems wanted an asterisk, they got it.  They wanted to prevent him from running in 2024, they did not get it yet so we will see how that plays out.  My perspective may not be pleasant, but it's unfortunately accurate.  You can pretend that it's not and I will be fine with that.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Redux said:

didn't get a conviction, so it's proof of nothing

 

It's proof that Republicans are too spineless to convict a person so obviously guilty. The case against him was rock solid. But the jurors - the Republicans - were biased, and acquitted him (with a minority of votes). 

 

Pinning trump's innocence on the complicity of Republicans isn't a compelling argument. It betrays a sympathy to trump & Republicans that, frankly, is kinda disgusting.

Link to post
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

It's proof that Republicans are too spineless to convict a person so obviously guilty. The case against him was rock solid. But the jurors - the Republicans - were biased, and acquitted him (with a minority of votes). 

 

Pinning trump's innocence on the complicity of Republicans isn't a compelling argument. It betrays a sympathy to trump & Republicans that, frankly, is kinda disgusting.

 

Lol, it still was FAR from rock solid.  But you appear determined to plant your foot here.  The Republicans are too spineless to convinct, well there's a newsflash :P.  I'm more interested why the Dems didn't want witnesses.

 

And confirming Trump's guilt off of the articles the Dems wrote and convicting him in the court of public opinion isn't a compelling argument either.  Regardless of his guilt, the actual case was weak and he ended up aquitted.

 

End of story

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
Just now, Redux said:

confirming Trump's guilt off of the articles the Dems wrote

 

And the evidence presented in the Senate trial, which was utterly damning - and largely his own words. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And the evidence presented in the Senate trial, which was utterly damning - and largely his own words. 

 

And those words specifically included "go peacefully".  Hence, ya know, the acquittal.  They probably should've had a better case.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

The articles could have included allegations of kicking a puppy in 1988, it still doesn't matter.  His body of work as a whole has been under fire since before there was a body of work to critique.

 

Yes and that is WHY impeachment is more political theater than actual trial.  Again, the ones moving to impeach wrote them to paint him ugly.  This isn't shocking and didn't get a conviction, so it's proof of nothing.

 

Mitch sucks, I've never disagreed with this.  Be mad at the refusal to go through with witnesses though, as I've mentioned many times.

 

Maybe they should have done a better job the first time and this wouldn't even be a problem today?  I don't care if you question my integrity.  You're questioning it has zero impact on anything being discussed here.  Much like the articles of Impeachment had on actually convicting.  The Dems wanted an asterisk, they got it.  They wanted to prevent him from running in 2024, they did not get it yet so we will see how that plays out.  My perspective may not be pleasant, but it's unfortunately accurate.  You can pretend that it's not and I will be fine with that.

Impeachment by it's very nature and birth is political. It's literally a political tool. I don't know why people get so hung up on this.

 

What would witnesses have changed? They got the witness statement they wanted on record, and didn't delay the regular business of the Senate for another month or two.

 

I'm not questioning your integrity so much as the "good faith" of your argument. You don't care to acknowledge the nuances of the pro impeachment/conviction side. Painting it only in a black and white context. By contrast when it comes to Trump, his words and actions, you're willing find every shade of grey between.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
Just now, Redux said:

 

And those words specifically included "go peacefully".  Hence, ya know, the acquittal.  They probably should've had a better case.


So all he has to do is utter two words - out of 11,000 - to exonerate him in your opinion? That's not legally supportable. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, knapplc said:


So all he has to do is utter two words - out of 11,000 - to exonerate him in your opinion? That's not legally supportable. 

 

And yet it worked 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

And those words specifically included "go peacefully".  Hence, ya know, the acquittal.  They probably should've had a better case.

Said only out of CMA mode. 

The stack of evidence using his other words speak differently. The go peacefully comment was an obvious outlier.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...