Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Who forced them to call a witness from Schiff's list? Nobody forced them - it was a choice the minority made. 

 

The defense doesn't have any witnesses who actually help their case, unless they want to commit perjury. 

 

There's a reason a bunch of witnesses were blocked from testifying. 

Edited by jrober38
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The defense doesn't have any witnesses who actually help their case, unless they want to commit perjury. 

 

There's a reason a bunch of witnesses were blocked from testifying. 

how can you possibly know this? hint: you can't.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When does this sham get started. 
 

the most hilarious part of all of this is the Dems are totally backed into a corner. Even if you assume that trump withheld funds so that the Ukraine could investigate Biden and Crowdstrike, it’s a totally defendable position given the potential corruption of Biden and the DNC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The magic, lemming-tested, word of the day ?

 

 

 

 

Cover-up !

 

 

 

 

I'd suggest taking a drink after every time a democrat uses it, but I don't have enough liquor in the house.........?

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Who forced them to call a witness from Schiff's list? Nobody forced them - it was a choice the minority made. 

 

More dishonesty from the king of it. 

 

The minority had NO chance to call witnesses of their own choosing. None. 

 

Because Schiff is a cheat. Like you're full of Schiff. 

 

***** off with that dishonest disinformation. 

3 minutes ago, dubs said:

When does this sham get started. 
 

the most hilarious part of all of this is the Dems are totally backed into a corner. Even if you assume that trump withheld funds so that the Ukraine could investigate Biden and Crowdstrike, it’s a totally defendable position given the potential corruption of Biden and the DNC!

 

It gets started really tomorrow. Today is the rules. It'll be lawyers arguing minutia of the Senate all day. It'll be a circus, nasty, and unwatchable.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

If witnesses could exonerate the President, why on earth would he block them from testifying?

come on... this isn't that hard. in case you are unaware, this is following precedent and protecting future actions against the presidency. much like has happened in the past. separation of powers.

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

If witnesses could exonerate the President, why on earth would he block them from testifying?

 

This is a garbage take. Complete garbage. 


We live in a system of justice where you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The house didn't prove, or come close to proving, guilt. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

come on... this isn't that hard. in case you are unaware, this is following precedent and protecting future actions against the presidency. much like has happened in the past. separation of powers.

 

It's really sad if you actually believe this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

It's really sad if you actually believe this. 

 

 

It's sadder that you are willing to toss the Constitution aside for your partisan beliefs.  

  • Like (+1) 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...