Jump to content
Nanker

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It really is amazing that Jeffery Epstein's legal dream team is the same one defending Trump. And Alex Acosta was in the cabinet! 

 

Biden will have a field day with those facts 

  Biden can't find his way from the kitchen to the bathroom and probably has trouble distinguishing between the two.  It explains why there is a full-time plumber on duty at the Biden estate.

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What happened in the House was a farce. It was nonsense, partisan, and completely without merit. 

 

The Senate will smash it. Per its mandate. And there's nothing Schumer or Schiff can do about it but whinge.

 

it's funny to me that more people don't see this as the final outcome.

 

Why the hell do you think leftists are repeating the Pelosi mantra that "No matter what happens, this impeachment stays with Trump forever."?

 

Because it's the Kewpie doll prize for coming in last place.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Cipollone blatantly lie?

 

 

Edited by Gary Busey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Except it turns out McCarthy was on point. As for these a$$holes? Can't say the same.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid

As the Senate prepared for the impeachment trial, the Government Accountability Office said the White House violated a law that limits a president’s power to withhold money allocated by Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Philbin speak after that blue beast is night and day. Philbin is actually using logical arguments citing actual law, versus a bullet point list of platitudes and nonsense which have nothing to do with the actual case. 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, it's back. 

4 minutes ago, dubs said:

Watching Philbin speak after that blue beast is night and day. Philbin is actually using logical arguments citing actual law, versus a bullet point list of platitudes and nonsense which have nothing to do with the actual case. 
 

 

 

 

***********

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Foxx said:

whoa, Schiffty just called witnesses.

 

Witnesses he didn't have the balls to call when he was in charge. Wimpy people say wimpy things. 

  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foxx said:

whoa, Schiffty just called witnesses.

Trump should like that! Stop the cover up! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

table motion of Schumer's trial proposal just submitted. voting now.

Edited by Foxx
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foxx said:

table motion just submitted.

 

1 of how many? At least 10+ I think... I forget how many Schumer had. 

 

But it takes two hours between each vote. Time for: 

Image result for pouring coffee gif

 

No way anyone is watching this besides the demented few out there (of which I include myself proudly). 


Romney voted to table it... there goes that gambit for the dems. This was a big one, so he's locked in with Mitch.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

1 of how many? At least 10+ I think... I forget how many Schumer had. 

 

But it takes two hours between each vote. Time for: 

Image result for pouring coffee gif

 

No way anyone is watching this besides the demented few out there (of which I include myself proudly). 

yep. it's gonna be a long night.

 

***************************************************************************

 

Schumer trial proposal:

 

yea:  53

nay: 47

 

suck it Dems!

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can’t get over the whole basis for this. How does it even approach an impeachable offense?  It’s actually not only not impeachable, but the duty of the president to ensure the countries we are giving taxpayer money to and not involved in corruption with current or former senior administration officials. 
 

Facts:

1) hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma only because he was the son of a sitting Vice President.  (That alone is a basis for investigation)

 

2) joe Biden bragged about firing a prosecutor who was looking into burisma. He accomplished this by threatening to withhold foreign aid. 
 

3) no aide was withheld by the trump administration. 
 

why again are we here??

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

yep. it's gonna be a long night.

yea:  53

nay: 47

 

suck it Dems!

 

53-47 is hilarious :lol: 

 

It'll be that way all the way through. With two dems (at least) jumping over to vote against removal in the end (Manchin for sure, and probably one or two more)

Just now, dubs said:

I still can’t get over the whole basis for this. How does it even approach an impeachable offense?  It’s actually not only not impeachable, but the duty of the president to ensure the countries we are giving taxpayer money to and not involved in corruption with current or former senior administration officials. 
 

Facts:

1) hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma only because he was the son of a sitting Vice President.  (That alone is a basis for investigation)

 

2) joe Biden bragged about firing a prosecutor who was looking into burisma. He accomplished this by threatening to withhold foreign aid. 
 

3) no aide was withheld by the trump administration. 
 

why again are we here??

 

It doesn't hold water. It's making differences of opinion on policy an impeachable offense. If it's allowed to stand, it would lead to every future president being impeached simply for disagreeing with the House. It would be the end of the republic. 

 

And that's what Schiff and his ilk really wants. But that's another story.

 

Collins and Romney locked in by Mitch. Good work, cocaine apparently does a body good.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

53-47 is hilarious :lol: 

 

It'll be that way all the way through. With two dems (at least) jumping over to vote against removal in the end (Manchin for sure, and probably one or two more)...

i expect that when it comes time to actually vote on the articles (i don't think they get dismissed (could be wrong though)), it will be a bi partisan acquittal. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

53-47 is hilarious :lol: 

 

It'll be that way all the way through. With two dems (at least) jumping over to vote against removal in the end (Manchin for sure, and probably one or two more)

 

It doesn't hold water. It's making differences of opinion on policy an impeachable offense. If it's allowed to stand, it would lead to every future president being impeached simply for disagreeing with the House. It would be the end of the republic. 

 

And that's what Schiff and his ilk really wants. But that's another story.

 

Collins and Romney locked in by Mitch. Good work, cocaine apparently does a body good.


I have yet to hear an even reasonable argument for this. I honestly want to hear one, so I can at least see the other side of the case. 
 

all I’ve heard are wild statements about the threat to our republic, dismissing the basis for curiosity about Biden and Crowdstrike as ‘conspiracy theory’, and as DR said, hysteria over policy changes/different approaches than the entrenched bureaucracy. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stepped back from this political nonsense with the Bills season going on, but I have a question for the political experts on here..........

 

Isn't it the President's JOB to look into corruption, or am I missing something here?

 

Doesn't the President have executive privilege to do whatever the fvck he wants if he sees their is potential corruption?

 

If the answers to these two questions are yes.......... then the answer to this question should be a yes.................

 

Is this whole thing a fvcking ridiculous farse?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, njbuff said:

I have stepped back from this political nonsense with the Bills season going on, but I have a question for the political experts on here..........

 

Isn't it the President's JOB to look into corruption, or am I missing something here?

 

Doesn't the President have executive privilege to do whatever the fvck he wants if he sees their is potential corruption?

 

If the answers to these two questions are yes.......... then the answer to this question should be a yes.................

 

Is this whole thing a fvcking ridiculous farse?

 

Yes. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...