Jump to content
Nanker

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

The minority was also permitted to call fact witnesses and a couple of their witnesses did testify.

 

It also wasn't a trial. 

 

 

My bad, you are correct.  Not a trial.  Political stunt.  I mis-typed.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Foxx said:

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jrober38 said:

 

It's really sad if you actually believe this. 

 

It's really sad that you're pushing a complete reversal of 100s of years of liberal philosophy and jurisprudence simply because you got a BAD case of TDS. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

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...