2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: QUIETShooter on January 13, 2021, 07:46:39 AM
-
The democrats doesn't want him running for office in 2024.
Nancy was on tv this morning pleading for her fellow congressmen to vote to impeach President Trump.
She talked about how it breaks her heart, how it must break her colleagues hearts, and how America's hearts are broken because they had to resort to these actions. She goes on about how it is her duty as an officer of congress and a US citizen to protect the constitution.
Yeah, right. Protect the constitution after it is altered and amended to benefit her and her party.
No, it's not because of all of the above reasons.
The first sentence of the post is the reason they want to impeach President Trump. Plain and simple.
-
Cocaine Mitch is "supporting" it also. The establishment doesn't want him back in 2024 in the GOP.
What they all fail to realize is I think he can win as an independent. Most of the moderates in the middle of both sides will see that in 2 years when they see their bank accounts/401K empty and expenses go up.
Like him or hate him, he was good for the AMERICAN economy.
-
Good I hope the gop gets with mitch and impeachs him so he can never run for office again. Put him in the past and move on so they can put up a fight against the democrats in the future without distractions. He will never win office ever again all he can do is split the conservative vote and give free wins to democrats. Just like how he did in 2020. Look where we are. Democrats control all levels of government.
-
They've been screaming for impeachment since before Trump took office..
Everything Trump's done to try and get something good accomplished for the nation was being demonized as "worse than Watergate!!"
For any Democrat to say they are reluctant to impeach Trump makes my eyes roll so far up I can see behind me.
I've stopped listening to anything Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and Nadler have to say. After the last impeachment and all the histrionics and lies they told, another impeachment less than 2 weeks from the end of his term only does one thing -- it gives the Dems carte blanch to erase every good thing Trump did for us the last four years. If Trump did it, it must be repealed and expunged from memory, because Orange Man was impeached from office.
It could also be an attempt to stain Trump's image even further so his businesses are not as lucrative in the future, thereby keeping any future self-funded Trumps from entering politics.
I really don't see President Trump running in 2024. I do, however, foresee a Don Jr., or maybe an Ivanka, candidacy.
I'll be happy if we can keep ALL the Clintons away from office from now until eternity.
Impeachment will do more to further divide the nation than anything the Congress could do. They KNOW they don't have the votes to impeach, because the charges are ridiculous -- again. Name a law that Trump broke? Inciting insurrection? LOL!! There's NO evidence of that -- only a mischaracterization of his words.
BTW, insurrection means to overthrow the government. I've never heard of a sitting President trying to overthrow the government he leads, even if he's a lame duck. He has a legal right to challenge the election results -- it's in the Constitution.
If you think impeachment is a good thing, then you weren't paying attention the last four years. Your TDS is showing.
-
Acting and marketing, that's all there is to it.
-
Trump Jr 2024
-
Another waste of time.
-
Ivanka? :love:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_xYtB1BkE&ab_channel=NewsNOWfromFOX
-
.
-
Ivanka? :love:
She is more qualified than most members of congress
-
.
I guess Trump's video is OG's "take as to why President Trump is being impeached this time."
God knows he wouldn't be posting anything off-topic after all the times he's been called out for that.
-
McConnell came out this afternoon and said he won’t convene the Senate early in order to try Trump. So Trump can run again in 2024 if he so desires. But even better he can help get rid of the feckless Republicans in 2022. Referendums are a bitch! :rofl:
-
McConnell came out this afternoon and said he won’t convene the Senate early in order to try Trump. So Trump can run again in 2024 if he so desires. But even better he can help get rid of the feckless Republicans in 2022. Referendums are a bitch! :rofl:
If/when the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate (I wonder if the Parade of Fools will be featured this time?), the Senate must place that issue before all others on the Senate's docket.
That means any new stimulus checks (Joe promised $2,000 checks will go out it the Dems won both GA run-off races), and all other critical business until the impeachment process completes.
More of the Dems putting political BS ahead of the real issue Congress needs to be addressing. It was impeachment that delayed any real focus on the coming pandemic, but somehow it was all Trump's fault. Try publishing any other headlines when an impeachment trial is being covered.
-
If/when the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate (I wonder if the Parade of Fools will be featured this time?), the Senate must place that issue before all others on the Senate's docket.
That means any new stimulus checks (Joe promised $2,000 checks will go out it the Dems won both GA run-off races), and all other critical business until the impeachment process completes.
More of the Dems putting political BS ahead of the real issue Congress needs to be addressing. It was impeachment that delayed any real focus on the coming pandemic, but somehow it was all Trump's fault. Try publishing any other headlines when an impeachment trial is being covered.
If McConnell won’t convene the Senate early, they don’t reconvene until the 19th. By the time they get to the articles, Trump will no longer be president.
-
Trump can be convicted after he leaves office preventing him from running again. The democrats will control the senate in 7 days. They can bring it up. I hope it gets 2/3 of the votes needed.
-
.
-
I guess Trump's video is OG's "take as to why President Trump is being impeached this time."
God knows he wouldn't be posting anything off-topic after all the times he's been called out for that.
More like his desperation to cover his tracks and backtrack.
-
.
-
If McConnell won’t convene the Senate early, they don’t reconvene until the 19th. By the time they get to the articles, Trump will no longer be president.
The Congress tried to convict Reagan after office, but Col North took the fall.
Ford pardoned Nixon to prevent any post-resignation charges from being pursued.
Given the comments made by President-elect* Alzheimer, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to issue a pardon for Trump.
If it's legal, Trump should pardon himself before the 19th. If that's not possible, these constant attacks will be never-ending.
I'd love to have the Orange Man Voodoo Doll concession in DC.
-
The Congress tried to convict Reagan after office, but Col North took the fall.
Ford pardoned Nixon to prevent any post-resignation charges from being pursued.
Given the comments made by President-elect* Alzheimer, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to issue a pardon for Trump.
If it's legal, Trump should pardon himself before the 19th. If that's not possible, these constant attacks will be never-ending.
I'd love to have the Orange Man Voodoo Doll concession in DC.
This is not a criminal trial. It is a political process. If the guy who is at the center of the political process is no longer in politics, the process is over. You can’t try someone in order to determine if they should be removed from office if they are not in office. It’s settled science.
-
Apparently, a new congresscritter plans to file impeachment againsy Bidet on Jan 21.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-file-biden-impeachment-articles-on-january-21/
(https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-file-biden-impeachment-articles-on-january-21/)
-
Apparently, a new congresscritter plans to file impeachment againsy Bidet on Jan 21.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-file-biden-impeachment-articles-on-january-21/
(https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-file-biden-impeachment-articles-on-january-21/)
That’s what this impeachment circus has come down to. Just keep impeaching him until it sticks. They tried it with Trump and it didn’t work. Maybe it will work with Bidet? :rofl:
-
That’s what this impeachment circus has come down to. Just keep impeaching him until it sticks. They tried it with Trump and it didn’t work. Maybe it will work with Bidet? :rofl:
I think the purpose is no longer removal. It's now just a tactic for impeding the President. Look at how much Trump was barred from doing simply because of the 2-3 year investigation. He had to stay hands-off of the Biden corruption allegations until the Dem primaries because of the Russia Hoax BS. As soon as the Mueller Report was final, he was able to start that ball rolling -- and got impeached for it!
Special Prosecutor -- Impeachment -- Lather -- Rinse -- Repeat...
-
This is not a criminal trial. It is a political process. If the guy who is at the center of the political process is no longer in politics, the process is over. You can’t try someone in order to determine if they should be removed from office if they are not in office. It’s settled science.
You can prevent the person from ever running in politics again.
-
I say impeach Bad Orange Man. . .
But seriously, I'm sick of what this is becoming. Lunacy from extremes on both sides. . . lets get rid of all the fucking politicians and start over. . .
[sarcasm-ish]
-
I think the purpose is no longer removal. It's now just a tactic for impeding the President. Look at how much Trump was barred from doing simply because of the 2-3 year investigation. He had to stay hands-off of the Biden corruption allegations until the Dem primaries because of the Russia Hoax BS. As soon as the Mueller Report was final, he was able to start that ball rolling -- and got impeached for it!
Special Prosecutor -- Impeachment -- Lather -- Rinse -- Repeat...
I think Pelosi was hoping she could convince McConnell to convene the Senate early so they could try Trump and have him removed so he could not run again in 2024. McConnell kept saying he had not decided yet whether he was going to do that or not during the entire impeachment process. After the vote to impeach is when he said he was not going to convene the senate early. I don’t know what the vote was but there was little to no bipartisan support for this impeachment. That might be what convinced McConnell not to bother trying Trump.
You are correct tho. Deflect deflect deflect. To me it is just a circus and Pelosi is just embarrassing herself. Again.
-
I say impeach Bad Orange Man. . .
But seriously, I'm sick of what this is becoming. Lunacy from extremes on both sides. . . lets get rid of all the fucking politicians and start over. . .
[sarcasm-ish]
All sarcasm-ish aside, term limits would go a long way to help prevent this from happening.
-
All sarcasm-ish aside, term limits would go a long way to help prevent this from happening.
Sarcasm aside, yuuuuuuupppppp!
-
I think Pelosi was hoping she could convince McConnell to convene the Senate early so they could try Trump and have him removed so he could not run again in 2024. McConnell kept saying he had not decided yet whether he was going to do that or not during the entire impeachment process. After the vote to impeach is when he said he was not going to convene the senate early. I don’t know what the vote was but there was little to no bipartisan support for this impeachment. That might be what convinced McConnell not to bother trying Trump.
You are correct tho. Deflect deflect deflect. To me it is just a circus and Pelosi is just embarrassing herself. Again.
Remember when Pelosi and Schiff were talking about impeaching Trump again the same week the Senate voted to not convict?
Term limits, PLEASE!!
-
Sarcasm aside, yuuuuuuupppppp!
Hey, I’m more sarcastic-ish than YOU are. :rofl:
-
Remember when Pelosi and Schiff were talking about impeaching Trump again the same week the Senate voted to not convict?
Term limits, PLEASE!!
YES! They didn’t tho because it takes too long to come up with more lies that the stupid naive people will believe.
We will never see term limits in our lifetime. For them it is like cutting off their nose to spite their face!
-
I wonder if many of the people bitching about the impeachments bitched about the like 13 Benghazi hearings :geekdanc:
-
.
-
Only reason dnc is pushing it us to keep tds voters. They voted him guilty before the ink was even dry on the articles.
Easy to say he insited the violence because its 100% subjective. He could say he doesnt like steak and the dnc will say he is insinuating he hates the working class cattle ranchers.
The truth is if he did say to storm the capitol and do violent things, it would be played on all the fake news networks. But its not because like always, theyre making shit up.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Only reason dnc is pushing it us to keep tds voters. They voted him guilty before the ink was even dry on the articles.
Easy to say he insited the violence because its 100% subjective. He could say he doesnt like steak and the dnc will say he is insinuating he hates the working class cattle ranchers.
The truth is if he did say to storm the capitol and do violent things, it would be played on all the fake news networks. But its not because like always, theyre making shit up.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Telling a group of people a lie for months, getting them rifled up in a falsehood with no evidence. Telling everyone they are getting scammed, then directing that anger. To "fight" them. Then in the same sentence say lets go to the capital. That's pretty sus. Unless he is a complete moron, which is possible, any reasonable person would believe he is agitating them and directing them for a response. What did he think would happen? His loyal fans, the group of people who he has told to fight and that the people inside the building are responsible for grievous fraud. Guiding said group of people to the location of said enemies. Never saying to be peaceful and not enter the building. Not saying anything for HOURS after they broke into the building. Not sending people into stop it from happening for hours too, till your VP mobilizes the national guard,
-
.
-
..
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Congress has basically accomplished nothing over the past 4 years, suffers an abysmal 11% approval rating, and now they are about to lose the scapegoat for their incompetence. The whole point of this impeachment is to drag out the Trump Hate for as long as they possibly can, because they know once he is gone the left will turn on itself while cancelled conservatives regroup and come up with a cohesive strategy for taking on the Swamp.
-
McConnell came out this afternoon and said he won’t convene the Senate early in order to try Trump. So Trump can run again in 2024 if he so desires. But even better he can help get rid of the feckless Republicans in 2022. Referendums are a bitch! :rofl:
I'm putting money down the senate tries him anyway with Chucky in charge. No rules that say they can't. Just hasn't been done before. Came close in the 1800s with a senator. And Nancy and Chucky would do it and not see the damage they are doing to themselves as egotistical as they are.
But rumors swirl that Trump will go through with it to have the televised testimony and trot out all the shit the democrats have done and not been impeached for as defense. He may be an asshole and may talk like a sailor, but he's a crafty son of a bitch. He didn't get this far in life by being stupid. He plays 4D chess.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
-
I'm putting money down the senate tries him anyway with Chucky in charge. No rules that say they can't. Just hasn't been done before. Came close in the 1800s with a senator. And Nancy and Chucky would do it and not see the damage they are doing to themselves as egotistical as they are.
But rumors swirl that Trump will go through with it to have the televised testimony and trot out all the shit the democrats have done and not been impeached for as defense. He may be an asshole and may talk like a sailor, but he's a crafty son of a bitch. He didn't get this far in life by being stupid. He plays 4D chess.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
It's not insurrection if Trump was trying to ensure the integrity of a rigged election.
I hope his lawyers trot out hours and hours of testimony, videos, affidavits, and other proof showing how the results of the election are still in question. The anomalies have not been explained to anyone's satisfaction. All we've gotten are simple statements saying "not true" from the people certifying the elections. That's not providing reasons for the anomalies and impossible results existing in some counties.
As long as the evidence becomes part of the record, I welcome the trial. It'll be more than the Supreme Court was willing to do -- allow a presentation of the evidence BEFORE dismissing the case.
-
I'm putting money down the senate tries him anyway with Chucky in charge. No rules that say they can't. Just hasn't been done before. Came close in the 1800s with a senator. And Nancy and Chucky would do it and not see the damage they are doing to themselves as egotistical as they are.
But rumors swirl that Trump will go through with it to have the televised testimony and trot out all the shit the democrats have done and not been impeached for as defense. He may be an asshole and may talk like a sailor, but he's a crafty son of a bitch. He didn't get this far in life by being stupid. He plays 4D chess.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Even if Schumer tried to do that, it would be symbolic at best. The one impeachment article the House voted on does not even come up close to the level of charges of high crimes and misdemeanors that the House has to have in order to even bring the charge in the first place. It’s not real. It’s just a game they are playing. And as much as I think McConnell is as corrupt as the rest of them, he did the right thing for not bringing this to trial. The whole thing is a political ploy. A circus and a waste of our tax dollars.
The Democrats are trying to demoralize Trump because he is become the leader of a populous movement that our country has not seen since Reagan. The Democrats and the stupid naive voters are terrified of this. Trump and his family can now continue to lead this movement and create a legacy if they have the stomach for politics. JMHO :shaka:
-
we can start by writing our Congressional Brat Pack. I just got an email from Ed Case stating that he can't work with people who are not on board with impeachment and have objected to Biden's "win"
-
Even if Schumer tried to do that, it would be symbolic at best. The one impeachment article the House voted on does not even come up close to the level of charges of high crimes and misdemeanors that the House has to have in order to even bring the charge in the first place. It’s not real. It’s just a game they are playing. And as much as I think McConnell is as corrupt as the rest of them, he did the right thing for not bringing this to trial. The whole thing is a political ploy. A circus and a waste of our tax dollars.
The Democrats are trying to demoralize Trump because he is become the leader of a populous movement that our country has not seen since Reagan. The Democrats and the stupid naive voters are terrified of this. Trump and his family can now continue to lead this movement and create a legacy if they have the stomach for politics. JMHO :shaka:
They should be focused on what needs to be done to help Americans moving forward. I can't believe more Americans aren't pissed at the ineffectiveness of our Representatives and Senators.
-
They should be focused on what needs to be done to help Americans moving forward. I can't believe more Americans aren't pissed at the ineffectiveness of our Representatives and Senators.
You are absolutely correct. And if I were Joe Biden I would tell Schumer to forget about any plans to waste the Senate’s time and resources on a baseless trial where they have no standing and (IMHO) is unconstitutional. Biden would instantly be a hero and if Schumer continued he would look really bad to his own constituents.
-
You are absolutely correct. And if I were Joe Biden I would tell Schumer to forget about any plans to waste the Senate’s time and resources on a baseless trial where they have no standing and (IMHO) is unconstitutional. Biden would instantly be a hero and if Schumer continued he would look really bad to his own constituents.
That's not how Biden and his party thinks . You're thinking with your brain and not your ass.
-
That's not how Biden and his party thinks . You're thinking with your brain and not your ass.
Oh, Inspector thinks with his arse all the time ;D
-
Oh, Inspector thinks with his arse all the time ;D
At least he's a smart one & not a dumb one.
I hope I'm not over the line inspector
-
At least he's a smart one & not a dumb one.
I hope I'm not over the line inspector
Ya, prob true. ;D
No worry. He likes peeps talking about his arse.
-
That's not how Biden and his party thinks . You're thinking with your brain and not your ass.
Congress will explain that they couldn't do anything for bidet first 4 years because the Republicans wouldn't help them persecute Trump after he left office.
So we still have to lock down & its still trumps fault the nation didn't get vaccinated.
But
If you give bidet 4 more years, we can fix all that & well end the lock downs
-
if I were Joe Biden I would tell Schumer to forget about any plans to waste the Senate’s time and resources on a baseless trial where they have no standing and (IMHO) is unconstitutional. Biden would instantly be a hero and if Schumer continued he would look really bad to his own constituents.
Nevah happen, G.I.
-
Hope they put this trial on the backburner and just do it on the side. No rush. Trump isnt a major threat for another 4 years. Right now they got more important things like covid to deal with.
-
Hope they put this trial on the backburner and just do it on the side. No rush. Trump isnt a major threat for another 4 years. Right now they got more important things like covid to deal with.
quick editing, man
-
Hope they put this trial on the backburner and just do it on the side. No rush. Trump isnt a major threat for another 4 years. Right now they got more important things like covid to deal with.
Who is "they?"
The House?
The Senate?
-
https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/posts/3904146953011370
To sum it up, can't have a hearing for a private citizen if Trump leaves office on the 20th.
-
https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/posts/3904146953011370
To sum it up, can't have a hearing for a private citizen if Trump leaves office on the 20th.
Nonsense!
Full attack!
- Gen Omori
-
https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/posts/3904146953011370
To sum it up, can't have a hearing for a private citizen if Trump leaves office on the 20th.
Wouldn't it be hilarious (and ironic) if the Dems delayed inauguration by the 10 days requested by some GOP Congressmen so there can be a review of election interference claims -- as a way to give the Congress time to impeach Trump? The irony would be when they actually prove the election was stolen by a few states' illegal mail-in rules, unobserved counting violations and stuffing the ballot box!
I can dream ...
-
This is a gun oriented site correct?
I've just decided the impeachment was done to motivate us to go buy AR-50's
and donate them to our mainland friends.
1800 meters effective range.
Very hard on custom made Transformers that take months to replace.
Wink, wink,
-
This is a gun oriented site correct?
I've just decided the impeachment was done to motivate us to go buy AR-50's
and donate them to our mainland friends.
1800 meters effective range.
Very hard on custom made Transformers that take months to replace.
Wink, wink,
We have Transformers?
That means the politicians are probably Decepticons. :shake:
-
This is a gun oriented site correct?
I've just decided the impeachment was done to motivate us to go buy AR-50's
and donate them to our mainland friends.
1800 meters effective range.
Very hard on custom made Transformers that take months to replace.
Wink, wink,
Looks like it worked. A few sites that I check that usually have at least SOMETHING, all gone. Pricing on some other sites going way up.
Anyone wanna buy a NIB PSA upper? :hmm:
-
Oh, Inspector thinks with his arse all the time ;D
I am a “Smart Ass!” :rofl:
-
At least he's a smart one & not a dumb one.
I hope I'm not over the line inspector
Of course not. Joke all you want. I don’t take much seriously these days anyway. :rofl:
-
Ya, prob true. ;D
No worry. He likes peeps talking about his arse.
I do! I do!!!!
-
https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/posts/3904146953011370
To sum it up, can't have a hearing for a private citizen if Trump leaves office on the 20th.
While the constitution is vague to a point it is clear about one thing. A trial in the senate is to determine guilt of the president in order to remove him. If the senate tries the president after Trump leaves then they would have to try Bidet. Because Trump would not be the president by the time they get around to it. So in my opinion it is unconstitutional and they have no standing nor precedence for a trial against a citizen and not a president. If they attempt it it would be a sham. And since they have no standing to do it, any guilty verdict could not apply because it has to apply to the president according to the constitution. And Trump would not be president by that time. Besides, two things going against the Dems on this one. First is they have to get started right away according to the constitution. And that means McConnell will still be the leader. SO it won’t happen because he already said it won’t. Also, it takes a 2/3 majority to convict and that is a tough route to get to. Let’s face it, if Schumer is stupid enough to try this stunt, and he is that stupid, he is not stupid enough to try it unless he thinks he has the votes. If he doesn’t have the votes, why waste the senate’s time and resources. JMHO
-
While the constitution is vague to a point it is clear about one thing. A trial in the senate is to determine guilt of the president in order to remove him. If the senate tries the president after Trump leaves then they would have to try Bidet. Because Trump would not be the president by the time they get around to it. So in my opinion it is unconstitutional and they have no standing nor precedence for a trial against a citizen and not a president. If they attempt it it would be a sham. And since they have no standing to do it, any guilty verdict could not apply because it has to apply to the president according to the constitution. And Trump would not be president by that time. Besides, two things going against the Dems on this one. First is they have to get started right away according to the constitution. And that means McConnell will still be the leader. SO it won’t happen because he already said it won’t. Also, it takes a 2/3 majority to convict and that is a tough route to get to. Let’s face it, if Schumer is stupid enough to try this stunt, and he is that stupid, he is not stupid enough to try it unless he thinks he has the votes. If he doesn’t have the votes, why waste the senate’s time and resources. JMHO
I think the Senate should vote to hear the case rather than immediately voting to decline the articles of impeachment. That'll get all the Senators on the record with their votes.
Then the Dems will be forced to put on a prosecution, showing what a scam the impeachment really is. They have less now than the first time.
Once the Dems have shown their lack of evidence, the Trump lawyers can use their time to go over all the election illegalities as a way of defending Trump's statements -- get them on the record.
The Senate would then fail to convict, but all the crap will be on the record -- vs on FB and Twitter -- where it will remain.
That's my hope. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
from another forum Post titled "Changing Times" only appreciated by those that dare take that long drive to Kokohead to exercise your 2A right and practice your sport
I have listened to everyone else’s hatred, rhetoric and outright lies for the last four years, so now I am having my say. If you don’t like it, you know where the pussy liberal anonymous confused button is.
Let me be clear, I am not a Biden fan. I think he is corrupt, a liar, a racist bigot, in bed with China and probably suffering from dementia. He has done nothing to improve anything in his 47-year political career.
But what has Trump done in the past 4 years?
The "arrogant" in the White House brokered four Middle East Peace Accords, something that 71 years of political intervention and endless war failed to produce.
The "buffoon" in the White House is the first president that has not engaged us in a foreign war since Eisenhower.
The "racist" in the White House has had the greatest impact on the economy, bringing jobs, and lowering unemployment to the Black and Latino population of ANY other president. EVER!
The "liar" in the White House has exposed the deep, widespread, and long-standing corruption in the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, and the Republican and Democratic parties.
The "buffoon" in the White House turned NATO around and had them start paying their dues.
The "fool" in the White House neutralized the North Koreans and stopped them sending missiles toward Japan and threatening the West Coast of the US.
The "xenophobe" in the White House turned our relationship with the Chinese around, brought hundreds of businesses back to the US, and revived the economy.
This same “clown” lowered your taxes, increased the standard deduction on your IRS return from $12,500 to $24,400 for married couples and caused the stock market to rise to record levels, positively impacting the retirement accounts of tens of millions of citizens.
The “clown” in the White House fast-tracked the development of multiple COVID Vaccines which are now available or will be soon. And yet we still don't have a vaccine for SARS, Bird Flu, Ebola, or a host of diseases that arose during previous administrations.
The “clown” in the White House rebuilt our military which the Obama administration crippled and fired 214 key generals and admirals in his first year of office.
I GOT IT; YOU DON’T LIKE HIM. MANY OF YOU UTTERLY HATE & DESPISE HIM. How special of you. He is serving you and ALL the American people and donating every penny of his salary to worthy causes to help America.
What are you doing besides calling him names and laughing about him catching the China virus? Some of you were even hoping that COVID would be the cause of his demise. (Ah, the left. The party of “tolerance”.)
Please educate me again as to what Biden has accomplished for America in his 47 years in office besides making the whole Biden family richer. Where is Hunter?
I’ll take the “clown” any day versus a fork tongued, smooth talking hypocritical corrupt liar. I want a strong leader who isn’t afraid to kick some ass when needed. I don’t need a fatherly figure. I don’t need a liar. That's what Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the New York Times are for.
Call me a chump, a racist, or part of the basket of deplorables. I do not care !
God bless Donald Trump - the best, most unappreciated President in U.S. history.
-
Impeaching him like this is stupid, even if you agree he should be impeached. He will be gone before it can be completed so even trying to rush it is just wasting out time and money.
-
Impeaching him like this is stupid, even if you agree he should be impeached. He will be gone before it can be completed so even trying to rush it is just wasting out time and money.
Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Zero evidence?
The first time there was some, I probably wouldn't of pursued. But this second time the evidence is definitely there.
-
.
-
..
-
Correct. Twice now the DNC controlled House voted to impeach someone with zero evidence.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I disagree with your premise of zero evidence but that is another discussion.
This second impeachment isn't for a lack of evidence, it is because what he has said doesn't actually amount to a crime, it is considered protected speech.
-
I disagree with your premise of zero evidence but that is another discussion.
This second impeachment isn't for a lack of evidence, it is because what he has said doesn't actually amount to a crime, it is considered protected speech.
Free speech covers hate speech but doesn't cover saying fire in a theater. That's how I view it. Overall Trump crossed a line during the last few months.
-
.
-
The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.
But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase
originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never
binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious
free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.
:wacko:
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
-
The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.
Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.
:wacko:
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Dan Bongino went over this in the vid i posted.
Heres a breakdown for those who didnt watch it. It has to be immediate. So yelling fire in a room and people immediatly will leave. Same goes with "inciting violence". Even if trump did say to break in, it wasnt done immediatlly. Thats why the stuff waters says about harassing gop reps isnt illegal unless there was a rep right there 5 feet away and the crowd harassed the rep within seconds.
Immediate makes all the difference. But in trumps case, nothing he said meant go damage property anyways, so its moot.
InB4 he incited violence. Proof? Zero proof.
InB4 what he says meant to do it. Read above. And learn to read and comprehend.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater not being legal is bogus.
Anyone repeating this debunked example hasn't looked into it beyond parroting what someone else told them it means.
:wacko:
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Okay I'll redo that quote. It's like yelling let's hunt Pence and telling the mob to fight while saying the people in the capital are their enemies and other inflammatory remarks. Then directing everyone to March to the capital.
Is the antifa member screaming let's kill the rich/cops and burn everything down infront of cops and buildings being attacked free speech? Or does it cross a line?
-
.
-
..
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
We have Transformers?
That means the politicians are probably Decepticons. :shake:
Didn't the Autobots lose the war against the Decepticons on two planets?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
Free speech covers hate speech but doesn't cover saying fire in a theater. That's how I view it. Overall Trump crossed a line during the last few months.
Wouldn't fly, Trump never said something specific that could only be seen as instructing people to take violent action. As long as a statement could have more than one plausible meaning it would become very difficult to prove intent for the bad outcome. Trump's statements clearly could be seen as implying a violent uprising but it could also be seen as directing people to simply march to the capitol and protest. Legally he didn't cross the line, at least not based on any comments I have seen so far.
"lets kill cops" clearly crosses the line. It directly encourages violence and cannot be reasonably interpreted to be something non violent.
-
Wouldn't fly, Trump never said something specific that could only be seen as instructing people to take violent action. As long as a statement could have more than one plausible meaning it would become very difficult to prove intent for the bad outcome. Trump's statements clearly could be seen as implying a violent uprising but it could also be seen as directing people to simply march to the capitol and protest. Legally he didn't cross the line, at least not based on any comments I have seen so far.
"lets kill cops" clearly crosses the line. It directly encourages violence and cannot be reasonably interpreted to be something non violent.
Did you miss the whole 2 months he ramped everyone up with lies. Convincing his mob the election was fraud and they had to fight for it. Much like a cult leader, he is responsible for what he did. He wrote many remarks of violence and even attacked Pence. His language was one of ramping up hostilities. I could see if when the rioting started if he tried his best to stop it. But he didn't he watched it and made no true effort to stop. He praised them even. If he is not to blame for the violence as that might be harder to prove. He is responsible for the insurrection.
-
Did you miss the whole 2 months he ramped everyone up with lies. Convincing his mob the election was fraud and they had to fight for it. Much like a cult leader, he is responsible for what he did. He wrote many remarks of violence and even attacked Pence. His language was one of ramping up hostilities. I could see if when the rioting started if he tried his best to stop it. But he didn't he watched it and made no true effort to stop. He praised them even. If he is not to blame for the violence as that might be harder to prove. He is responsible for the insurrection.
Morally yes, legally/criminally no.
His speech is protected by the first amendment.
-
.
-
Morally yes, legally/criminally no.
His speech is protected by the first amendment.
Hmm I'm in the gray area. I'm starting to see where you might be correct. I think his impeachment should focus on the insurrection issue. There's plenty of evidence not covered by the 1st ammendment there.
-
.
-
According to some Constitutional scholars and lawyers, impeaching a private citizen is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Articles Pelosi and the House passed have not yet been delivered to the Senate, thus the impeachment process was not complete before Biden was sworn in.
The Constitution gives the House and Senate the power to impeach and try the president, not a former president.
Nixon was obviously guilty of an actual crime (obstruction, etc.). If his resignation wasn't going to protect him from impeachment, then why did he do it? In fact, the Articles from the House had already been passed and transmitted to the Senate, but the Senate wasn't able to formerly begin their process before the resignation. So, the Congress had everything in motion, almost exactly as the situation now has been started. Yet, they didn't try him after leaving office. Ford's pardon of Nixon was to prevent a civil or criminal trial and wasn't offered immediately, so the pardon wasn't stopping the Senate.
Fast forward to 2024. If the Senate actually convicts, and the Congress wants to stop Trump from becoming President again, he will have a chance to challenge the impeachment in court, which I think he'll win. Right now, Trump is not under the jurisdiction of the Senate.
Lastly, an impeachment is a POLITICAL process, not a criminal one. There is only one remedy if found guilty -- removal from office. To pursue impeachment now is fruitless.
-
Did you miss the whole 2 months he ramped everyone up with lies. Convincing his mob the election was fraud and they had to fight for it. Much like a cult leader, he is responsible for what he did. He wrote many remarks of violence and even attacked Pence. His language was one of ramping up hostilities. I could see if when the rioting started if he tried his best to stop it. But he didn't he watched it and made no true effort to stop. He praised them even. If he is not to blame for the violence as that might be harder to prove. He is responsible for the insurrection.
please show me where he did that specifically...
-
Hmm I'm in the gray area. I'm starting to see where you might be correct. I think his impeachment should focus on the insurrection issue. There's plenty of evidence not covered by the 1st ammendment there.
Congress can impeach on what they see as a moral wrong if they so feel like it.
-
According to some Constitutional scholars and lawyers, impeaching a private citizen is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Articles Pelosi and the House passed have not yet been delivered to the Senate, thus the impeachment process was not complete before Biden was sworn in.
The Constitution gives the House and Senate the power to impeach and try the president, not a former president.
Nixon was obviously guilty of an actual crime (obstruction, etc.). If his resignation wasn't going to protect him from impeachment, then why did he do it? In fact, the Articles from the House had already been passed and transmitted to the Senate, but the Senate wasn't able to formerly begin their process before the resignation. So, the Congress had everything in motion, almost exactly as the situation now has been started. Yet, they didn't try him after leaving office. Ford's pardon of Nixon was to prevent a civil or criminal trial and wasn't offered immediately, so the pardon wasn't stopping the Senate.
Fast forward to 2024. If the Senate actually convicts, and the Congress wants to stop Trump from becoming President again, he will have a chance to challenge the impeachment in court, which I think he'll win. Right now, Trump is not under the jurisdiction of the Senate.
Lastly, an impeachment is a POLITICAL process, not a criminal one. There is only one remedy if found guilty -- removal from office. To pursue impeachment now is fruitless.
Listened to a podcast about this today and unfortunately/fortunately (depending on one's angle) the constitution doesn't really get specific enough to address this so it is kind of a big unknown. Kind of like a president pardoning himself, nothing says he can but nothing says he can't either. Congress has impeached someone after they left office before so there is some precedent that it can be done. What sorts of terms congress can place I think may be uncharted territory though.
-
Listened to a podcast about this today and unfortunately/fortunately (depending on one's angle) the constitution doesn't really get specific enough to address this so it is kind of a big unknown. Kind of like a president pardoning himself, nothing says he can but nothing says he can't either. Congress has impeached someone after they left office before so there is some precedent that it can be done. What sorts of terms congress can place I think may be uncharted territory though.
It is f kn nonsense and a waste of tax dollars and America's time. Same as if they attempt to impeach Biden right now, as suggested by some other senator, or was it a rep?..
This bullshit has gotten out of control already, and perpetrated by both parties, plus and most guilty, the media.
American politics is done and gone. Nothing even resembling the original idea of freedom the constitution envisions.
Both sides are shitting on the document, and the useful idiotic morons are eating this shit up. Then the media is laughing all the way to the bank....
Just my opinion.
-
It is f kn nonsense and a waste of tax dollars and America's time. Same as if they attempt to impeach Biden right now, as suggested by some other senator, or was it a rep?..
This bullshit has gotten out of control already, and perpetrated by both parties, plus and most guilty, the media.
American politics is done and gone. Nothing even resembling the original idea of freedom the constitution envisions.
Both sides are shitting on the document, and the useful idiotic morons are eating this shit up. Then the media is laughing all the way to the bank....
Just my opinion.
C’mon man! Tell us how you really feel! :rofl:
Seriously though, the constitution is very clear here. The senate trial is to try the president. Period. Not anyone else. So if they are going to try the president they are going to try Biden because he is the president. Trump is no longer the president. The constitution does not include citizens or past presidents as to who is to be tried. Specifically it says the president. So they are not following the constitution. They are all criminals because they have sworn to uphold the constitution. And clearly they are not doing that. Anything else is just a lie.
-
C’mon man! Tell us how you really feel! :rofl:
Seriously though, the constitution is very clear here. The senate trial is to try the president. Period. Not anyone else. So if they are going to try the president they are going to try Biden because he is the president. Trump is no longer the president. The constitution does not include citizens or past presidents as to who is to be tried. Specifically it says the president. So they are not following the constitution. They are all criminals because they have sworn to uphold the constitution. And clearly they are not doing that. Anything else is just a lie.
I have ZERO confidence in these rat politicians, nor our judicial system, nor the average America's common sense anymore.
Sad but truth
Corruption all round, and am completely shocked, however not surprising, at how easy it is for people to be driven by lies and fear into biting into the biggest manipulation scheme I've seen in my life time..
-
I have ZERO confidence in these rat politicians, nor our judicial system, nor the average America's common sense anymore.
Sad but truth
Corruption all round, and am completely shocked, however not surprising, at how easy it is for people to be driven by lies and fear into biting into the biggest manipulation scheme I've seen in my life time..
I have lost all confidence in all aspects of our government myself. I feel bad for those younger people that are not going to understand that they are losing their freedoms because they have grown up with less freedom than you and I have. Just look at all the mask Karens out there demanding we give up our freedom and rights for “Safety”. Yet those who demand “Safety” over freedom and rights will no longer have those freedoms and rights. And obviously no longer have “Safety”. All in favor of a paper mask that science has shown is mostly ineffective. That is why it is more important for our country to push back on mask mandates in order to keep what we have before we lose it. Assuming we have not lost our freedom already. But the mask Karens don’t understand that. They think they can get their freedom back eventually. But that is the big lie. You and I are old enough to know and see once you lose some freedom it NEVER comes back no matter how hard one fights for it.
Biden set precedent towards losing our freedoms by Executive Order mandating we lose our freedom by having to where masks. Eventually it won’t stop at 100 days. It will become the norm someday. First 100 days. Then another 100 then another.
It is truly a sad time to live in our country.
-
please show me where he did that specifically...
Trump, in a video posted 90 minutes after lawmakers were evacuated, told the insurrectionists, “We love you. You’re very special,” while asking them to go home.
-
C’mon man! Tell us how you really feel! :rofl:
Seriously though, the constitution is very clear here. The senate trial is to try the president. Period. Not anyone else. So if they are going to try the president they are going to try Biden because he is the president. Trump is no longer the president. The constitution does not include citizens or past presidents as to who is to be tried. Specifically it says the president. So they are not following the constitution. They are all criminals because they have sworn to uphold the constitution. And clearly they are not doing that. Anything else is just a lie.
Wrong
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/22/legal-scholars-letter-supporting-constitutionality-of-impeaching-and-convicting-presidents-after-they-leave-office/
-
Trump, in a video posted 90 minutes after lawmakers were evacuated, told the insurrectionists, “We love you. You’re very special,” while asking them to go home.
does not equal
made no true effort to stop.
-
does not equal
made no true effort to stop.
If you wait 90 minutes to stop something you were watching happen for 90 minutes you made no true effort to stop. Especially if it would take you 60 seconds to ask them to stop. That's like watching a small fire grow larger for 90minutes then calling 911.
-
Wrong
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/22/legal-scholars-letter-supporting-constitutionality-of-impeaching-and-convicting-presidents-after-they-leave-office/
🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
https://www.cancerresearch.org/ (https://www.cancerresearch.org/)
-
If you wait 90 minutes to stop something you were watching happen for 90 minutes you made no true effort to stop. Especially if it would take you 60 seconds to ask them to stop. That's like watching a small fire grow larger for 90minutes then calling 911.
and this is an impeachable offense how?
-
https://www.cancerresearch.org/ (https://www.cancerresearch.org/)
I agree, he is.
-
and this is an impeachable offense how?
Inciting insurrection and waiting 90minutes for the result to make a call. Still is insurrection.
-
I think they should impeach him, and hope they are successful. If they do then we will get to finally clean house of some RINOs next mid term.
-
The Senate has 2 tasks: hold a trial, and vote to convict.
IF they vote to convict, they will then have the chance to vote whether or not to bar Trump from holding future government office.
There's zero chance he will be convicted, since (1) there's no way anyone can show he incited squat, and (2) if it goes down party lines, the Dems need 60 votes. Not going to get close to that.
So, if he's NOT convicted, there should be no vote to bar him from office. That would be like sentencing someone to a year in prison after being found "Not Guilty."
Of course, the Dems have a history of changing Senate rules when they have a simple majority. I can see them planning the impeachment for NO OTHER REASON than to bar him from office -- thus, that vote might be held regardless of the verdict.
We really need term limits for Congress.
-
The Senate has 2 tasks: hold a trial, and vote to convict.
IF they vote to convict, they will then have the chance to vote whether or not to bar Trump from holding future government office.
There's zero chance he will be convicted, since (1) there's no way anyone can show he incited squat, and (2) if it goes down party lines, the Dems need 60 votes. Not going to get close to that.
So, if he's NOT convicted, there should be no vote to bar him from office. That would be like sentencing someone to a year in prison after being found "Not Guilty."
Of course, the Dems have a history of changing Senate rules when they have a simple majority. I can see them planning the impeachment for NO OTHER REASON than to bar him from office -- thus, that vote might be held regardless of the verdict.
We really need term limits for Congress.
Never say never, some Republicans might cross the line. Even McConnell said what he did was wrong. Or they can just avoid the vote. It's percentage of people voting not a hard number. So if all the Republicans don't show up then Trump can be impeached without Republicans taking a side.
-
.
-
Wrong
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/22/legal-scholars-letter-supporting-constitutionality-of-impeaching-and-convicting-presidents-after-they-leave-office/
Once again, you’re wrong.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT
Article I states that the power of impeachment and trial are shared by the two houses but limits the power of Congress by expressly stating that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
Article II contains the key impeachment provision and standard, stating “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . . shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” So the Senate will get someone else. The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.
-
Once again, you’re wrong.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT
Article I states that the power of impeachment and trial are shared by the two houses but limits the power of Congress by expressly stating that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
Article II contains the key impeachment provision and standard, stating “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . . shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” So the Senate will get someone else. The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.
We will see what happens when he is tried. And/if the courts decide. There's plenty of people believing both sides.
-
We will see what happens when he is tried. And/if the courts decide. There's plenty of people believing both sides.
I never said it was not going to happen. I never said there are not people on both sides who have opinions. All I said was the constitution is very clear that the trial is to remove the president. And the president is Joe Biden. You said I was wrong. I am not wrong, you are. Once again you are a liar. As a matter of fact you are the forum’s biggest liar and BS’er.
I stated facts, you stated opinions and lies. Once again you singled me out and attacked me/my words with lies and opinions. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t deserve it and you once again are starting a fight I did nothing to provoke. You obviously have a hard on for me. Maybe you like older men. I don’t know. But you are not my type. I don’t like liars. And you do that in abundance on this forum. Did you daddy not give you enough attention growing up? Or are you just a spoiled LITTLE Millennial who went to Kamehameha? I think we all know what the truth is.
-
I never said it was not going to happen. I never said there are not people on both sides who have opinions. All I said was the constitution is very clear that the trial is to remove the president. And the president is Joe Biden. You said I was wrong. I am not wrong, you are. Once again you are a liar. As a matter of fact you are the forum’s biggest liar and BS’er.
I stated facts, you stated opinions and lies. Once again you singled me out and attacked me/my words with lies and opinions. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t deserve it and you once again are starting a fight I did nothing to provoke. You obviously have a hard on for me. Maybe you like older men. I don’t know. But you are not my type. I don’t like liars. And you do that in abundance on this forum. Did you daddy not give you enough attention growing up? Or are you just a spoiled LITTLE Millennial who went to Kamehameha? I think we all know what the truth is.
No, The constitution depending how you interpret it has different meanings. You are not correct. The supreme court decides in the end how to interpret the constitution, not you, not me. From my research there are more people who believe that its reasonable to impeach him even if he is not president. Because of the clause to ban further running for office and others. I am not attacking you, but fakenews. And you post alot of that. Recently in another thread you posted the election was "taken/stolen" from Trump, that is also fakenews. Still no proof in court. No idea where you got Kamehameha but I didn't go there. More #fakenews
-
.
-
No, The constitution depending how you interpret it has different meanings. You are not correct. The supreme court decides in the end how to interpret the constitution, not you, not me. From my research there are more people who believe that its reasonable to impeach him even if he is not president. Because of the clause to ban further running for office and others. I am not attacking you, but fakenews. And you post alot of that. Recently in another thread you posted the election was "stolen" from Trump, that is also fakenews. Still no proof in court. No idea where you got Kamehameha but I didn't go there. More #fakenews
You can say what you want. But the constitution is very clear. I am interpreting it literally. Which makes me correct as that is the way it is intended. You want to interpret it differently from what it says you go right ahead. You are allowed. But if you want to change the meaning of it, you need to have a good reason. Which so far you have not provided. That does not make you right. It just makes you different. To say more people believe Yadada yadda yadda, I can only say that your statement is ignorant as you have no proof of it. You can cite polls if you want. You can research all the leftist sites you want. Doesn’t make you right. It only makes you ignorant. If that is all you have to prove your opinion you have nothing. Once you lie a few times, no one here will believe your words even if you tell the truth. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf too often.
You should have read the article I posted and you would see you are once again wrong. It is very clear.
“Removal is stated as the question for the Senate to answer in the trial of “the President.” The Senate may, in its discretion, add disqualification after a president has been removed. The second optional penalty language was expressed as a limitation on the authority of the Senate and again references removal: “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification.” Since the Senate does not have to disqualify, it would not seem to be an interchangeable or equal consideration in that respect. Moreover, it is obvious that the Senate could not simply hold disqualification trials under this language. Its authority to disqualify is not triggered until after “the President” has been removed from office.”
Read it literally and you see I am right. I am not making anything up like you are. Lies, lies and more lies. The Constitution is what it is.
Once again, I’m not saying the trial won’t occur. And I don’t know what the outcome will be. What I said is it will be wrong if it did. But according to the language of the constitution as I bolded above, the Senate does not have the authority to disqualify the president until it is triggered by the removal of the president. Which I am sure you know cannot be done since Trump is not in office. Once again you are wrong Wrong Wrong.
BTW, maybe you should use that thing called Google and find out why Chief Justice Roberts has not said yet if he is going to preside over the Impeachment trial. He may. He may not. But he has not said because he has deliberate about it for a very good reason. What is that reason? Why would he have to decide if he is going to preside over the trial. Especially when he is on record for not liking Trump. Shouldn’t it be a slam dunk that he would preside over it? Maybe if you Google it it might make more sense to you why he has to deliberate. The other problem becomes if he decides not to, then the president of the Senate will preside. And she has a definite conflict of interest making the trial a complete political sham.
You mention a previous post. Your statement just proves I am once again right. I am getting under your skin. Or you have a hard on for me. Either way every time you try and prove me wrong you end up looking like a fool. Like right now.
Why are you attacking me? I have done nothing to you nor have I done anything to provoke you. Yet here you are making yourself look foolish in front of a small tight knit community. These are people you stated once that would like to be friends with. Do you think it wise to lie and BS your way just to try and one up me? Do you think anyone here on this forum respects you for this? I guess you just don’t give a shit.
-
" You are not correct. "
Well Dave, she certainly put you in your place. :oops:
Who are you to argue with a millennial chick with an iFag and Google at her fingertips? :thumbsup:
-
" You are not correct. "
Well Dave, she certainly put you in your place. :oops:
Who are you to argue with a millennial chick with an iFag and Google at her fingertips? :thumbsup:
Yeah, you’re right. She’s right. She’s always right! Chicks always think they are. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
https://youtu.be/HMw1zzFASOQ
-
On whether Donald John Trump incited the erection. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Hilarious.
No doubt Schumer’s got a hard on for him.
-
Simple mistake.
Cryin' Chuck meant to say, "... excited the erection."
:geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
I think Chuck meant to say that! Hilarious! :rofl:
-
https://youtu.be/HMw1zzFASOQ
So funny! I think his mind was preoccupied on something else.
-
Innocent until proven guilty!
Then and now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5X4aH2h9M
-
It is f kn nonsense and a waste of tax dollars and America's time. Same as if they attempt to impeach Biden right now, as suggested by some other senator, or was it a rep?..
This bullshit has gotten out of control already, and perpetrated by both parties, plus and most guilty, the media.
American politics is done and gone. Nothing even resembling the original idea of freedom the constitution envisions.
Both sides are shitting on the document, and the useful idiotic morons are eating this shit up. Then the media is laughing all the way to the bank....
Just my opinion.
I would tend to agree. I think impeaching Trump is both a waste of money/time as well as a political mistake. All it will do is further galvanize Trump's supporters (in my opinion) into believing it was some big conspiracy. It does nothing to help heal a divide. I think it would actually be smart of Biden to pardon some (not all) of the Trump supporters who stormed the capitol, help heal the divide a little.
-
C’mon man! Tell us how you really feel! :rofl:
Seriously though, the constitution is very clear here. The senate trial is to try the president. Period. Not anyone else. So if they are going to try the president they are going to try Biden because he is the president. Trump is no longer the president. The constitution does not include citizens or past presidents as to who is to be tried. Specifically it says the president. So they are not following the constitution. They are all criminals because they have sworn to uphold the constitution. And clearly they are not doing that. Anything else is just a lie.
There was another instance where someone was impeached after leaving the office so case law would seem to indicate a former president could still be impeached.
-
If you wait 90 minutes to stop something you were watching happen for 90 minutes you made no true effort to stop. Especially if it would take you 60 seconds to ask them to stop. That's like watching a small fire grow larger for 90minutes then calling 911.
That makes him arguably morally culpable but not legally culpable.
-
There was another instance where someone was impeached after leaving the office so case law would seem to indicate a former president could still be impeached.
I know. The precedence doesn’t apply towards the presidency, however. But if you want to stretch it that far I guess you could. And it looks like the Democrats are going to try. The thing is that the constitution is pretty clear about the punishment part of an impeachment trial. The punishment portion, if the Democrats choose to inflict this, is triggered by the removal of the president from office. Which we both know cannot happen since Trump is no longer in office. The constitution is clear for it to be a removal “and” then punishment. Not an either/or. So it is obvious to me that they are trying to reinterpret the way the constitution is written. Don’t get me wrong. They do it all the time. But when something like this is quite clear I think it criminal that they want to reinterpret it for their political motives. The precedent this is going to set is far worse than most people think.
What do you think of Biden’s impeachment? Articles of impeachment have now been presented to the House? Much stronger case than the one against Trump IMO.
-
What do you think of Biden’s impeachment? Articles of impeachment have now been presented to the House? Much stronger case than the one against Trump IMO.
That's where you're wrong bucko. The feds not gonna go after the new boss who they've been waiting for for 4 years. Hunters thing will be swept under the rug again.
-
That's where you're wrong bucko. The feds not gonna go after the new boss who they've been waiting for for 4 years. Hunters thing will be swept under the rug again.
Never said anything would come of it. Just asked what he thought of it. What I did say is the case against Biden is much stronger against Biden than the case against Trump.
But like you said, it will get swept under the rug.
-
Interesting how politics can stew in corruption yet tolerated.
As long as the party holding power find it acceptable.
-
That makes him arguably morally culpable but not legally culpable.
How?
-
BECAUSE HE IS STILL PRESIDENT !
-
I know. The precedence doesn’t apply towards the presidency, however. But if you want to stretch it that far I guess you could. And it looks like the Democrats are going to try. The thing is that the constitution is pretty clear about the punishment part of an impeachment trial. The punishment portion, if the Democrats choose to inflict this, is triggered by the removal of the president from office. Which we both know cannot happen since Trump is no longer in office. The constitution is clear for it to be a removal “and” then punishment. Not an either/or. So it is obvious to me that they are trying to reinterpret the way the constitution is written. Don’t get me wrong. They do it all the time. But when something like this is quite clear I think it criminal that they want to reinterpret it for their political motives. The precedent this is going to set is far worse than most people think.
What do you think of Biden’s impeachment? Articles of impeachment have now been presented to the House? Much stronger case than the one against Trump IMO.
I am not sure we would ever get a final answer to an impeachment of Trump. If congress impeaches him and convicts him it probably wont get tested unless Trump sues and/or tries to run for president again at which time the SCOTUS would have to weigh in. I suspect it wont get that far.
I think there is rather little hard evidence to impeach Biden for anything at this point. Only suspicions and a few circumstantial things. Pretty weak at best. Plus, impeach him and then what do we get? Someone farther left!
-
BECAUSE HE IS STILL PRESIDENT !
So, if it turns out that Congress can only impeach a serving president, they are admitting Trump won.
Checkmate! :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
How?
Morally culpable is more of a subjective judgement. Legal culpability is much more of an objective question, either Trump violated a law or he didn't.
Imagine I constantly called a girl at school ugly/stupid/worthless/etc. and she ended up committing suicide. I broke no law, my speech was protected, but arguably I caused or contributed towards her suicide and did something immoral.
I could think of countless examples, there are so many things that would be morally wrong but not violate any laws
-
<speculation>
It only makes sense to impeach Trump if he actually is still the REAL president elect. Maybe the DEMs and the RINOs know that Trump actually won.
</speculation>
-
<speculation>
It only makes sense to impeach Trump if he actually is still the REAL president elect. Maybe the DEMs and the RINOs know that Trump actually won.
</speculation>
I've heard to keep Trump from running again 2024!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
I've heard to keep Trump from running again 2024!
Based on the rules of the Senate, there are supposed to be 2 votes after the trial:
1. Vote to convict
2. Vote to bar from future office.
#1 requires a super-majority of 60 Senators to convict. Almost no chance of that happening.
#2 only requires a simple majority. If all Senators are present, and the 50/50 tie occurs per party seats in the Senate, VP Harris would be the tie breaker.
I can't see them proceeding to #2 if #1 fails to convict. Why would any Senator vote to bar a former president from office if he successfully defended himself in the trial? That would not only make no sense, but it would be morally, legally and politically repugnant.
If they don't convict, they shouldn't even hold the second vote. Period. To do so would be to punish a man who was not found guilty of the charges alleged.
Of course, I'm not sure if the rules already cover this. If they do, it's not beyond the Dems to change those rules just so they can hold the second vote in spite of the trial outcome.
Just my 2 cents. I need to see if the Senate impeachment rules are reported anywhere.
-
Tim Kane (Remember him? Hildabeast's running mate in 2016?) said this week that his biggest concern about the pending impeachment of former President Donald Trump is that it will become a punchline: President Trump, the President who was acquitted twice after impeachment.
Punchline?
I guess Kane sees the impeachment for what it is: a joke.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cooper-trump-impeachment/2021/02/08/1fc83bb2-6a14-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html
Hope he does get impeached.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cooper-trump-impeachment/2021/02/08/1fc83bb2-6a14-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html
Hope he does get impeached.
You sound like the US empire's version of Saul of Tarsus.
-
Like I mentioned in my first post, this impeachment farce is because the democrats are afraid. They are afraid of what Trump can do. How he can influence people with the core values and basic freedoms that were put in place by the founders of this nation.
He will always be associated with the leader who bucked the political system, and put America and Americans first and foremost. Fuck this global shit. America first. You don't try to clean someone's else's yard if you haven't straightened out yours first. Common fucken sense. biden and obama apparently doesn't know what that is.
Anyway, these cowardly scairdy cat demos are using the opportunity of being in power to apply the hammer and put Trump 6' under.
The demos know that a nation of armed patriots is a nation that cannot be manipulated or taken advantage of. These fucken demos think it's the other way around. They think they can tell us what to do. Fucken retards forgot or are disregarding what they took their oath of office for.
Bastards...... >:(
OK. Rant over but guarantee will erupt again from time to time.
Otherwise with his influence and leadership courage, Americans will once again vote for the leader(s) who offers hope for a Nation of responsible, freedom-loving, brave patriots.
-
You sound like the US empire's version of Saul of Tarsus.
I’m not much up on religion and religious figures so I had to look up your reference to Saul of Tarsus. I was surprised that I know who he was/is. And I thought I knew most or all of the story about him. So I had to dig a little and take my time to find a new part of his story I never heard before so I understood the reference. I do try and learn something new everyday if I can. So thank you for this.
-
I’m not much up on religion and religious figures so I had to look up your reference to Saul of Tarsus. I was surprised that I know who he was/is. And I thought I knew most or all of the story about him. So I had to dig a little and take my time to find a new part of his story I never heard before so I understood the reference. I do try and learn something new everyday if I can. So thank you for this.
You are very much welcome Inspector. :shaka:
I usually don't bring in religion when I make an argument, but the almost perfect parallels of what is happening today is uncanny, to what has happened, in the past (e.g., Fall of the Roman Empire, Overthrow of Liliuokalani/Trump).
Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any Devine intervention to save younglings, like our resident IT professional, that are already indoctrinated willing subject citizens to what I refer, as the US empire.
-
You are very much welcome Inspector. :shaka:
I usually don't bring in religion when I make an argument, but the almost perfect parallels of what is happening today is uncanny, to what has happened, in the past (e.g., Fall of the Roman Empire, Overthrow of Liliuokalani/Trump).
Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any Devine intervention to save younglings, like our resident IT professional, that are already indoctrinated willing subject citizens to what I refer, as the US empire.
Briefly read his description. Other than the fact the religious story was stupid. I don't see major parallels. I am not trying to oppress a huge amount people but just Trump, who I dislike and I think broke the law. I think he needs to be punished for his actions and lies.
-
Briefly read his description. Other than the fact the religious story was stupid. I don't see major parallels. I am not trying to oppress a huge amount people but just Trump, who I dislike and I think broke the law. I think he needs to be punished for his actions and lies.
TDS is real. Find a cure! :geekdanc:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cooper-trump-impeachment/2021/02/08/1fc83bb2-6a14-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html
Hope he does get impeached.
He already HAS BEEN impeached. Impeachment occurred when the House delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. By definition, the impeachment has been completed.
An impeachment is like an arraignment or grand jury indictment. Once that happens, the trial decides if the charges are true, and what the punishment should be.
You really need to read the Constitution -- that thing you value so dearly.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Not a difficult concept. Sole Power -- impeachment has already happened.
-
TDS is real. Find a cure! :geekdanc:
He already HAS BEEN impeached. Impeachment occurred when the House delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. By definition, the impeachment has been completed.
An impeachment is like an arraignment or grand jury indictment. Once that happens, the trial decides if the charges are true, and what the punishment should be.
You really need to read the Constitution -- that thing you value so dearly.
Not a difficult concept. Sole Power -- impeachment has already happened.
You have the same thing against Biden, Hope you find a cure too. Or maybe we can judge a person based on their character and actions and not have to be labeled...
Ok I will rephrase. I hope Trump get convicted in the "trial" and gets banned from running from office.
-
.
-
I am not trying to oppress a huge amount people but just Trump (Insert: J_S_S C_R_S_), who I dislike and I think broke the law. I think he (Insert: HE) needs to be punished (Insert: CRUCIFIED) for his actions and lies.
Hana Hou!
Sounds eerily to me like something Saul of Tarsus would have said, during the Roman Empire. :shake:
-
You have the same thing against Biden, Hope you find a cure too. Or maybe we can judge a person based on their character and actions and not have to be labeled...
Ok I will rephrase. I hope Trump get convicted in the "trial" and gets banned from running from office.
So, you don't deny having TDS?
Good. Acceptance is the first step toward recovery.
And I'm also glad you demonstrated the ability to learn something you didn't already know -- but on which you already formed an opinion. We need to see more of that from you rather than deflection and arguing.
BTW, I can't have TDS against Biden. Trump Derangement Syndrome is specific to Trump. It's why the name "Trump" is in the abbreviation.
Think before you spew infantile retorts.
-
Hana Hou!
Sounds eerily to me like something Saul of Tarsus would have said, during the Roman Empire. :shake:
Better Call Saul
-
Better Call Saul
Sounds like an advertising jingle! :rofl:
-
Sounds like an advertising jingle! :rofl:
It's final season is coming up sometime this year -- hopefully very soon.
-
You have the same thing against Biden, Hope you find a cure too. Or maybe we can judge a person based on their character and actions and not have to be labeled...
Ok I will rephrase. I hope Trump get convicted in the "trial" and gets banned from running from office.
If he does, it's proof there are no Senators willing to follow their oaths of office.
Everyone knows the chances of conviction are ZERO, and without a conviction, there will be no vote to bar from office.
Might as well HOPE the Easter Bunny comes to your house this year.
-
On my yahoo news feed pops up says impeachment evidence is overwhelming. Guess same type of russia evidence?
-
So, you don't deny having TDS?
Good. Acceptance is the first step toward recovery.
And I'm also glad you demonstrated the ability to learn something you didn't already know -- but on which you already formed an opinion. We need to see more of that from you rather than deflection and arguing.
BTW, I can't have TDS against Biden. Trump Derangement Syndrome is specific to Trump. It's why the name "Trump" is in the abbreviation.
Think before you spew infantile retorts.
I don't have "TDS" I just dislike Trump and think he broke the law. Just like how you dislike Biden. But I don't go around saying you have BDS...
-
If he does, it's proof there are no Senators willing to follow their oaths of office.
Everyone knows the chances of conviction are ZERO, and without a conviction, there will be no vote to bar from office.
Might as well HOPE the Easter Bunny comes to your house this year.
The courts never proved that Santa breaks into peoples homes every xmas eve.
-
Hana Hou!
Sounds eerily to me like something Saul of Tarsus would have said, during the Roman Empire. :shake:
Or I could sound like most other humans on earth, that if you break the law you get punished....inciting insurrection is unlawful....
-
On my yahoo news feed pops up says impeachment evidence is overwhelming. Guess same type of russia evidence?
Evidence is not proof.
OG being on the Internet is evidence that he's sentient, but not proof. :rofl:
-
Or I could sound like most other humans on earth, that if you break the law you get punished....inciting insurrection is unlawful....
No evidence to support the claim that Trump incited anything other than a peaceful protest.
-
I don't have "TDS" I just dislike Trump and think he broke the law. Just like how you dislike Biden. But I don't go around saying you have BDS...
No, my dislike of Biden is pragmatic and fact-based. Your pure hatred of Trump is emotion-driven. It's captured in your posts.
Hoping a former President is tried and convicted does nothing for the country other than continue the division the Democrats thrive on.
TDS is when you hate Trump more than you love the country.
-
First I think I should make a statement that most of us already know. The Senate trial of Citizen Trump is NOT a criminal trial. It is a political trial. Which is why no matter what anyone thinks, he did not commit any crime. Anybody who says he committed a crime does not know what they are talking about. Because if he did he would have a criminal trial. A criminal trial is easier to do than a political trial. If they are not even going to attempt to bring criminal charges against him, he has not committed any crime. The only reason the Democrats are bringing an illegal senate trial is to try and hurt citizen Trump politically. No other reason. In other words they have TDS. It is that simple.
The illegal senate trial will likely fail since the Senate already voted that the Senate trial is legal or illegal thanks to Rand Paul. The vote was that 45 Republicans voted that it is an illegal trial. Meaning it is highly unlikely that the Senate Democrats will get the needed 60 votes to remove a citizen who is not in office.
Which brings me to the reason it is an illegal senate trial. First the constitution is quite specific as to the reason a Senate trial should be brought. And that reason is to remove the president from office and then if after the Senate votes to remove the president from office, then they may or may not vote to bar him from running for president again. Obviously he is no longer in office. So technically, the Senate cannot vote to remove him. Therefore they cannot vote to punish him. The Constitution is very clear about this. The Senate trial is not a criminal trial. therefore they do not vote to convict. They only vote to remove. They cannot vote to remove someone who is not in office. The Constitution is very clear. But, the second reason this Senate trial is illegal is again, very clear in the Constitution. The Senate trial to remove a president shall be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Who is Chief Justice Roberts. And Chief Justice Roberts sees this trial for what it really is. An illegal Senate trial of a citizen to attempt to hurt a citizen politically. Not to remove a sitting president which the Constitution states. And guess what he said? He wants no part of this illegal Senate trial. Because it is in fact illegal. His presiding over this trial would give it validity. Without him presiding it is illegal. The Constitution is quite clear.
I know most or all of you know all of this. The reason I am writing all of this is to state the facts above and because the rest here is JMHO. I welcome this illegal Senate trial. I want to see it occur. Actually, I prefer the Democrats who we pay with our tax dollars follow the rule of law and not proceed with an impeachment. But since they decided to break the law of the Constitution and have an illegal impeachment hearing and now an illegal Senate trial we now know they don’t care about the rule of law. They only care about politically punishing a citizen of the US. Some of you may wonder why I welcome this illegal Senate trial? I welcome it because I just finished reading the speech President Trump gave on January 6. And I don’t believe he said anything that even comes close to inciting a riot. I listened to the speech on January 6, I didn’t hear anything then. So I decided to read it (and it is really long) to make sure I didn’t misunderstand something. I didn’t. I even watched CNN and MSNBC videos to see what they were saying so I can understand what it is they are saying about inciting a riot. Everything they said was taken out of context as usual. Being that they did that, I can understand how some low information people could take it that way if that is all they heard. but if you read the entire speech and insert the so called inflammatory statements back into their context, there is nothing they can say that incited a riot. Lying by omission is still lying. The Trump defense team will expose this attempt to take his words out of context as a pretext to impeachment. I don’t care what the Senators think. I care about what the people think and hear. And they will hear the truth as to how these statements have been taken out of context and are therefore lying. That is what the people who listen to the Senate trial will hear.
The biggest thing I heard that the Trump defense team intends to show videos of prominent Democrats actually inciting violence. Senators like Chuck Schumer actually threatening some of the SCOTUS justices. And Maxine Waters threatening all Republicans with violence just because they are not welcome any where. I want the people to hear what real incitement is and then they can decide for themselves if the statements that Trump made (in context) were in fact inciting violence. And IMHO it will be a big victory for Trump and a huge defeat and embarrassment for the Democrats. Of course this is JMHO.
-
Roberts refusing to have anything to do with this clown show insures the thing is unconstitutional and illegitimate.
He made that point quite clearly, though the raging liberals cannot fathom that.
-
Roberts refusing to have anything to do with this clown show insures the thing is unconstitutional and illegitimate.
He made that point quite clearly, though the raging liberals cannot fathom that.
Nor do they understand you cannot impeach someone who is not president. But hey, they need more votes cause they stood up to the orangeman.
-
Roberts refusing to have anything to do with this clown show insures the thing is unconstitutional and illegitimate.
He made that point quite clearly, though the raging liberals cannot fathom that.
And, if you thought the last impeachment was a whirlwind in the House, taking just a couple of months to hear witness testimony and fabricate a phone call that Trump didn't make (Schiff Show), then this one should really make you distrust it. No witnesses, no testimony of any kind -- including experts to explain what Trump did was a high crime or misdemeanor. They literally started yelling "IMPEACH!!" on Jan 6th.
In order for a political impeachment to succeed. Congress needs the support of the people. Otherwise, they are risking alienating the country. They didn't even try to convince us. They simply made charges as if they are fact.
-
No, my dislike of Biden is pragmatic and fact-based. Your pure hatred of Trump is emotion-driven. It's captured in your posts.
Hoping a former President is tried and convicted does nothing for the country other than continue the division the Democrats thrive on.
TDS is when you hate Trump more than you love the country.
I have many facts on while Trump is bad. Many of them you are blind to, because of your devotion. What he did is unforgivable its not about coming together but banning him from running again and driving our country further from democracy. He is a threat to us all. If he runs in 2024, it will give the democrats a freewin, and if my some miracle he wins he will turn our democracy into a dictatorship I fear. After he is removed from running, his movement whatever you want to call it can continue. But the law breaking leader will be left behind.
I love my country more than most things, As evident by Kuleana saying "empire" remarks. I support America, I support Democracy, law, freedom, Trump is neither.
-
I have many facts on while Trump is bad. Many of them you are blind to, because of your devotion. What he did is unforgivable its not about coming together but banning him from running again and driving our country further from democracy. He is a threat to us all. If he runs in 2024, it will give the democrats a freewin, and if my some miracle he wins he will turn our democracy into a dictatorship I fear. After he is removed from running, his movement whatever you want to call it can continue. But the law breaking leader will be left behind.
I love my country more than most things, As evident by Kuleana saying "empire" remarks. I support America, I support Democracy, law, freedom, Trump is neither.
.......................................
-
I have many facts on while Trump is bad. Many of them you are blind to, because of your devotion. What he did is unforgivable its not about coming together but banning him from running again and driving our country further from democracy. He is a threat to us all. If he runs in 2024, it will give the democrats a freewin, and if my some miracle he wins he will turn our democracy into a dictatorship I fear. After he is removed from running, his movement whatever you want to call it can continue. But the law breaking leader will be left behind.
I love my country more than most things, As evident by Kuleana saying "empire" remarks. I support America, I support Democracy, law, freedom, Trump is neither.
What did he do? Call an election with 1000 irregularities, illegally changed voter laws, anomalies and witnesses to potentially election-changing practices illegitimate?
If that's the definition of a crime, then look at how many members of Congress did the exact same thing to Trump for 4 years. 2016 is the first time I ever heard or read the phrase "Not my President!" become a common thread in the media.
You like to post opinions as facts. They are opinions, nothing more.
Trump has some 700 million followers. Who is Trump a threat to? "us all??" Who is "us all?" Surely not his followers.
-
First I think I should make a statement that most of us already know. The Senate trial of Citizen Trump is NOT a criminal trial. It is a political trial. Which is why no matter what anyone thinks, he did not commit any crime. Anybody who says he committed a crime does not know what they are talking about. Because if he did he would have a criminal trial. A criminal trial is easier to do than a political trial. If they are not even going to attempt to bring criminal charges against him, he has not committed any crime. The only reason the Democrats are bringing an illegal senate trial is to try and hurt citizen Trump politically. No other reason. In other words they have TDS. It is that simple.
The illegal senate trial will likely fail since the Senate already voted that the Senate trial is legal or illegal thanks to Rand Paul. The vote was that 45 Republicans voted that it is an illegal trial. Meaning it is highly unlikely that the Senate Democrats will get the needed 60 votes to remove a citizen who is not in office.
Which brings me to the reason it is an illegal senate trial. First the constitution is quite specific as to the reason a Senate trial should be brought. And that reason is to remove the president from office and then if after the Senate votes to remove the president from office, then they may or may not vote to bar him from running for president again. Obviously he is no longer in office. So technically, the Senate cannot vote to remove him. Therefore they cannot vote to punish him. The Constitution is very clear about this. The Senate trial is not a criminal trial. therefore they do not vote to convict. They only vote to remove. They cannot vote to remove someone who is not in office. The Constitution is very clear. But, the second reason this Senate trial is illegal is again, very clear in the Constitution. The Senate trial to remove a president shall be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Who is Chief Justice Roberts. And Chief Justice Roberts sees this trial for what it really is. An illegal Senate trial of a citizen to attempt to hurt a citizen politically. Not to remove a sitting president which the Constitution states. And guess what he said? He wants no part of this illegal Senate trial. Because it is in fact illegal. His presiding over this trial would give it validity. Without him presiding it is illegal. The Constitution is quite clear.
I know most or all of you know all of this. The reason I am writing all of this is to state the facts above and because the rest here is JMHO. I welcome this illegal Senate trial. I want to see it occur. Actually, I prefer the Democrats who we pay with our tax dollars follow the rule of law and not proceed with an impeachment. But since they decided to break the law of the Constitution and have an illegal impeachment hearing and now an illegal Senate trial we now know they don’t care about the rule of law. They only care about politically punishing a citizen of the US. Some of you may wonder why I welcome this illegal Senate trial? I welcome it because I just finished reading the speech President Trump gave on January 6. And I don’t believe he said anything that even comes close to inciting a riot. I listened to the speech on January 6, I didn’t hear anything then. So I decided to read it (and it is really long) to make sure I didn’t misunderstand something. I didn’t. I even watched CNN and MSNBC videos to see what they were saying so I can understand what it is they are saying about inciting a riot. Everything they said was taken out of context as usual. Being that they did that, I can understand how some low information people could take it that way if that is all they heard. but if you read the entire speech and insert the so called inflammatory statements back into their context, there is nothing they can say that incited a riot. Lying by omission is still lying. The Trump defense team will expose this attempt to take his words out of context as a pretext to impeachment. I don’t care what the Senators think. I care about what the people think and hear. And they will hear the truth as to how these statements have been taken out of context and are therefore lying. That is what the people who listen to the Senate trial will hear.
The biggest thing I heard that the Trump defense team intends to show videos of prominent Democrats actually inciting violence. Senators like Chuck Schumer actually threatening some of the SCOTUS justices. And Maxine Waters threatening all Republicans with violence just because they are not welcome any where. I want the people to hear what real incitement is and then they can decide for themselves if the statements that Trump made (in context) were in fact inciting violence. And IMHO it will be a big victory for Trump and a huge defeat and embarrassment for the Democrats. Of course this is JMHO.
I'm an engineer so I'm a "glass is half empty" sort of guy.
Very good comment!
The hardest part of my religious beliefs is to treat modern
Democrats as human beings. I have more respect for my chickens.
Undoubtedly Democrats feel the same towards Americans.
The USA is no longer united nor are we functioning as "states".
More like "City states" ruling over the countryside.
Much Like Honolulu runs the entire state of Hawaii.
Prepare, as it is only going to get worse.
:grrr:
-
What did he do? Call an election with 1000 irregularities, illegally changed voter laws, anomalies and witnesses to potentially election-changing practices illegitimate?
If that's the definition of a crime, then look at how many members of Congress did the exact same thing to Trump for 4 years. 2016 is the first time I ever hear the phrase "Not my President!" become a common thread in the media.
You like to post opinions as facts. They are opinions, nothing more.
Trump has some 700 million followers. Who is Trump a threat to? "us all??" Who is "us all?" Surely not his followers.
Making false statements on the election, inciting insurrection to name a few recent laws broken. Just like you said, he was impeached... I don't have enough time to explain the ethics and morality issues. Trumps unlawful behavior, which resembles many dictators is a threat to democracy, which is a threat to America and us all. I never said that phrase, Trump was my president, one I didn't like in the end but that didn't change that fact. Now he isn't, still waiting on your "1000" irregularities, proved in court, so far none have had merit. So far now its #fakenews. Innocent till proven guilty. If you can't prove shit don't say it, as if it was facts. Please feel free to prove me wrong and provide verified evidence and rulings, ruled by the court of law.
-
I have many facts on while Trump is bad. Many of them you are blind to, because of your devotion. What he did is unforgivable its not about coming together but banning him from running again and driving our country further from democracy. He is a threat to us all. If he runs in 2024, it will give the democrats a freewin, and if my some miracle he wins he will turn our democracy into a dictatorship I fear. After he is removed from running, his movement whatever you want to call it can continue. But the law breaking leader will be left behind.
I love my country more than most things, As evident by Kuleana saying "empire" remarks. I support America, I support Democracy, law, freedom, Trump is neither.
is that paragraph in English?
-
I'm an engineer so I'm a "glass is half empty" sort of guy.
Very good comment!
The hardest part of my religious beliefs is to treat modern
Democrats as human beings. I have more respect for my chickens.
Undoubtedly Democrats feel the same towards Americans.
The USA is no longer united nor are we functioning as "states".
More like "City states" ruling over the countryside.
Much Like Honolulu runs the entire state of Hawaii.
Prepare, as it is only going to get worse.
:grrr:
The Bible says to love your enemies.
It also says there is a time to fight evil -- make your plowshares into swords.
The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
It's one thing to want to fix problems in the country, but it's another to oppose the fundamental values and laws that created the greatest nation on Earth.
While their intentions may not be evil, their desire to destroy what this country was intended to be is.
If freedom dies here, where will the rest of the freedom-seeking world turn?
-
Making false statements on the election, inciting insurrection to name a few recent laws broken. Just like you said, he was impeached... I don't have enough time to explain the ethics and morality issues. Trumps unlawful behavior, which resembles many dictators is a threat to democracy, which is a threat to America and us all. I never said that phrase, Trump was my president, one I didn't like in the end but that didn't change that fact. Now he isn't, still waiting on your "1000" irregularities, proved in court, so far none have had merit. So far now its #fakenews. Innocent till proven guilty. If you can't prove shit don't say it, as if it was facts. Please feel free to prove me wrong and provide verified evidence and rulings, ruled by the court of law.
is that paragraph in English?
-
Making false statements on the election, inciting insurrection to name a few recent laws broken. Just like you said, he was impeached... I don't have enough time to explain the ethics and morality issues. Trumps unlawful behavior, which resembles many dictators is a threat to democracy, which is a threat to America and us all. I never said that phrase, Trump was my president, one I didn't like in the end but that didn't change that fact. Now he isn't, still waiting on your "1000" irregularities, proved in court, so far none have had merit. So far now its #fakenews. Innocent till proven guilty. If you can't prove shit don't say it, as if it was facts. Please feel free to prove me wrong and provide verified evidence and rulings, ruled by the court of law.
You've already been proven wrong, but your ridiculous mantra of "not proven in court" denies the truth.
I REALLY don't have the time to prove again and again I'm right, when you refuse to accept it despite mountains of evidence.
Biden stole the election with the help of Democrat and Republican officials in swing states. If you refuse to accept that FACT, then continuous arguing is moot.
Bask in the warmth of your hatred for Trump. The House has more important emergencies right now to address, but Impeachment is job #1 for them.
Pathetic and petty.
-
Making false statements on the election, inciting insurrection to name a few recent laws broken. Just like you said, he was impeached... I don't have enough time to explain the ethics and morality issues. Trumps unlawful behavior, which resembles many dictators is a threat to democracy, which is a threat to America and us all. I never said that phrase, Trump was my president, one I didn't like in the end but that didn't change that fact. Now he isn't, still waiting on your "1000" irregularities, proved in court, so far none have had merit. So far now its #fakenews. Innocent till proven guilty. If you can't prove shit don't say it, as if it was facts. Please feel free to prove me wrong and provide verified evidence and rulings, ruled by the court of law.
"ethics and morality issues" are not "high crimes and misdemeanors"
-
You've already been proven wrong, but your ridiculous mantra of "not proven in court" denies the truth.
I REALLY don't have the time to prove again and again I'm right, when you refuse to accept it despite mountains of evidence.
Biden stole the election with the help of Democrat and Republican officials in swing states. If you refuse to accept that FACT, then continuous arguing is moot.
Bask in the warmth of your hatred for Trump. The House has more important emergencies right now to address, but Impeachment is job #1 for them.
Pathetic and petty.
This type of conversation already went in full circle twice now.
-
"ethics and morality issues" are not "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Never said those were impeachable offenses but reasons why I don't like him.
#focus.
-
You've already been proven wrong, but your ridiculous mantra of "not proven in court" denies the truth.
I REALLY don't have the time to prove again and again I'm right, when you refuse to accept it despite mountains of evidence.
Biden stole the election with the help of Democrat and Republican officials in swing states. If you refuse to accept that FACT, then continuous arguing is moot.
Bask in the warmth of your hatred for Trump. The House has more important emergencies right now to address, but Impeachment is job #1 for them.
Pathetic and petty.
You can't prove crimes cause you think something. That's not how it works. What if I thought you were a serial murderer? I can make up a bunch of evidence but doesn't mean shit unless I can prove it in court. Same thing. Everything you said accusing of "crimes" doesn't mean diddly shit unless its proven in court. Crimes are proven in court my friend, not your imagination.
I do agree with you on priorities, this probably isn't one. But it should happen.
-
You can't prove crimes cause you think something. That's not how it works. What if I thought you were a serial murderer? I can make up a bunch of evidence but doesn't mean shit unless I can prove it in court. Same thing. Everything you said accusing of "crimes" doesn't mean diddly shit unless its proven in court. Crimes are proven in court my friend, not your imagination.
I do agree with you on priorities, this probably isn't one. But it should happen.
Now do the impeachment charges. Nobody referred Trump to any criminal court, and impeachment is not a criminal trial. So, if he'd ACTUALLY incited violence, it would be in criminal court now.
That's how it works.
-
Now do the impeachment charges. Nobody referred Trump to any criminal court, and impeachment is not a criminal trial. So, if he'd ACTUALLY incited violence, it would be in criminal court now.
That's how it works.
Which is why we wait till its get proven, if he is found innocent. I will stop saying what he did was a crime.
Like Mac says, you going to admit you were wrong this time? :rofl: You disappeared after I pointed out all those poor truckers going to lose dem oil pipeline jobs.
-
Which is why we wait till its get proven, if he is found innocent. I will stop saying what he did was a crime.
Like Mac says, you going to admit you were wrong this time? :rofl: You disappeared after I pointed out all those poor truckers going to lose dem oil pipeline jobs.
Maybe you should start doing what the justice system was designed to do. Admit that Trump is innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Instead, you already know he's guilty and will always belive that no matter the outcome of the trial. Opinions won't change after the verdict, especially for those with TDS.
-
Maybe you should start doing what the justice system was designed to do. Admit that Trump is innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Instead, you already know he's guilty and will always belive that no matter the outcome of the trial. Opinions won't change after the verdict, especially for those with TDS.
No you can think that someone is probably guilty, that is fine until a verdict is reached. Opinions are not disallowed until, the court case is completed. But opinions should be re-assessed when a court case is completed.
Also innocent means that no punishment should be leveraged, that is what is happening now, Trump is free no restrictions etc. It is also why I say "I think" alot about trump and the impeachment. Because no verdict was reached.
I've said before, if trump is found innocent than I will agree. They found him innocent the first time, I thought he was guilty too. But after the verdict I have changed my option. I have not said he was guilty of the first impeachment after.
Your fraud claims have been disproved in court. Your opinions should be re-assessed.
-
No you can think that someone is probably guilty, that is fine until a verdict is reached. Opinions are not disallowed until, the court case is completed. But opinions should be re-assessed when a court case is completed.
Then you're basing your opinion on incomplete information. Has the evidence used to impeach been made public?
Everything I saw shows the House Dems can't make their case, which is why they revert to misinterpretations and emotions.
Sound familiar? Anyone here doing that, too?
-
Then you're basing your opinion on incomplete information. Has the evidence used to impeach been made public?
Everything I saw shows the House Dems can't make their case, which is why they revert to misinterpretations and emotions.
Sound familiar? Anyone here doing that, too?
Yes I watched the same video and saw all the tweets. The evidence is public to my knowledge. I am basing my opinion on my thoughts and what I witnessed during the event. If that is proven wrong, then I will reassess my opinions and respect the conclusion.
-
I'm an engineer so I'm a "glass is half empty" sort of guy.
Very good comment!
The hardest part of my religious beliefs is to treat modern
Democrats as human beings. I have more respect for my chickens.
Undoubtedly Democrats feel the same towards Americans.
The USA is no longer united nor are we functioning as "states".
More like "City states" ruling over the countryside.
Much Like Honolulu runs the entire state of Hawaii.
Prepare, as it is only going to get worse.
:grrr:
My friend, I appreciate your comments. I particularly enjoyed “I have more respect for my chickens.” Made me laugh pretty hard.
Your comments are the main reason I chose Northern AZ to live in since I had to move back to the mainland for my wife’s health. I feel similar to you in that Phoenix pretty much dominates what happens in this state. But locally we are still very conservative and have typical American values. You don’t know who is carrying a gun around here. Respect goes a long way.
I have been preparing since we arrived. I think we are finally in pretty good shape. I think we are ready for almost any reality that might hit us except a prolonged black out. But we have backup plans for that if it goes on for more than a couple of days and we feel the need to vacate. Otherwise we can hunker down here for a very long time.
But I have to admit that if TX secedes and becomes it’s own country I would consider moving there as America is not the same any more.
-
No you can think that someone is probably guilty, that is fine until a verdict is reached. Opinions are not disallowed until, the court case is completed. But opinions should be re-assessed when a court case is completed.
Also innocent means that no punishment should be leveraged, that is what is happening now, Trump is free no restrictions etc. It is also why I say "I think" alot about trump and the impeachment. Because no verdict was reached.
I've said before, if trump is found innocent than I will agree. They found him innocent the first time, I thought he was guilty too. But after the verdict I have changed my option. I have not said he was guilty of the first impeachment after.
Your fraud claims have been disproved in court. Your opinions should be re-assessed.
you don't say "i think" alot (sic)
-
Yes I watched the same video and saw all the tweets. The evidence is public to my knowledge. I am basing my opinion on my thoughts and what I witnessed during the event. If that is proven wrong, then I will reassess my opinions and respect the conclusion.
In your mind, truth is decided by the government, i.e. the legal system.
You've learned nothing from history, nor from reality.
-
Then you're basing your opinion on incomplete information. Has the evidence used to impeach been made public?
Everything I saw shows the House Dems can't make their case, which is why they revert to misinterpretations and emotions.
Sound familiar? Anyone here doing that, too?
You are right, they can't really make their case, but they also don't have to either because it is all really just a political question.
-
You are right, they can't really make their case, but they also don't have to either because it is all really just a political question.
No. They have to convince 51 Senators/VP that the articles of impeachment warrant a guilty verdict. That requires them to "make their case."
If the Senate votes 100% down party lines to convict without a single Republican voting to convict, the impeachment will hurt the Dem party more than Trump.
At his age, does anyone think he's willing to be a piñata again?
-
56 people in congress agree its constitutional, the Trial continues.
-
.
-
..
-
No. They have to convince 51 Senators/VP that the articles of impeachment warrant a guilty verdict. That requires them to "make their case."
If the Senate votes 100% down party lines to convict without a single Republican voting to convict, the impeachment will hurt the Dem party more than Trump.
At his age, does anyone think he's willing to be a piñata again?
"piñata", I don't think he'll do that again, but he will possibly
do what Democrats do, start funding organizations to kill
the Democrat party.
How much would it cost to give all truck drivers in America
pay to take four weeks off?
-
but its OK for a US citizen to do this:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdailyheadlines.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FKathy-Griffin-Twitter-Trump.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
but its OK for a US citizen to do this:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdailyheadlines.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FKathy-Griffin-Twitter-Trump.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
She isn't president, so cannot have an impeachment trial anyways...oh wait...
-
She isn't president, so cannot have an impeachment trial anyways...oh wait...
So, the Democrats' new strategy will be to impeach whomever the GOP nominee is BEFORE the election now?
Damn. Trump missed his chance to be impeached 3 times! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
So, the Democrats' new strategy will be to impeach whomever the GOP nominee is BEFORE the election now?
Damn. Trump missed his chance to be impeached 3 times! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You can’t say that! 2021 is not over yet. Just wait, 3 times a charm. :rofl:
-
You can’t say that! 2021 is not over yet. Just wait, 3 times a charm. :rofl:
Bill Clinton could have been impeached for theft of government property after he and Hildabeast swiped tens of thousands of dollars worth of dishes, silverware, and furnishings when they left. Their excuse, which never seems to get old, was, "I didn't know!"
Ma. Clinton should still be impeached for creating a server to circumvent the FOIA laws. Since it was a revamp of Bills old email server, he might be just as guilty from his use of it.
Obama lied to our faces about the Democrat ACA law -- not a tax, families save $2600/year, etc. Every Dem that voted for the ACA should be expelled, because they passed it under false pretenses -- taxation without actual representation. Wasn't a tax when voted on, but they knew better. Only when challenged in court was the mandated being a tax admitted to.
So many reasons to go after Dem presidents in the past. But what do we hear? "Let's move on."
-
Bill Clinton could have been impeached for theft of government property after he and Hildabeast swiped tens of thousands of dollars worth of dishes, silverware, and furnishings when they left. Their excuse, which never seems to get old, was, "I didn't know!"
Ma. Clinton should still be impeached for creating a server to circumvent the FOIA laws. Since it was a revamp of Bills old email server, he might be just as guilty from his use of it.
Obama lied to our faces about the Democrat ACA law -- not a tax, families save $2600/year, etc. Every Dem that voted for the ACA should be expelled, because they passed it under false pretenses -- taxation without actual representation. Wasn't a tax when voted on, but they knew better. Only when challenged in court was the mandated being a tax admitted to.
So many reasons to go after Dem presidents in the past. But what do we here? "Let's move on."
My first thought? Chappaquiddick. Let’s impeach Kennedy for killing Mary Joe Kopechne (sp?) and not reporting it for a few hours. Or how about Truman for dropping the bomb? Or Lincoln for freeing the slaves? Ridiculous.
-
Impeachment Day 3 – Democrats Rest Their Case With A Flurry Of Redundant, Irrelevant Evidence
https://thegreggjarrett.com/impeachment-day-3-democrats-rest-their-case-with-a-flurry-of-redundant-irrelevant-evidence/
-
Chris Wallace has an interesting take on the impeachment. Not a big fan of Chris Wallace but his take is interesting.
Let’s say for shits and giggles that the Senate finds Trump incited violence. I know they will never get the 67 votes to do that. But let’s just say they did. The Constitution is clear that the Senate can also vote to keep Trump from holding office again. Remember, the Constitution is very clear that they can vote to keep Trump from holding office again. But no where does the Constitution state that Trump can’t run again in 2024. So what if Trump runs for president again and gets the Republican nomination? But what if he not only gets the nomination but he actually wins the presidency again? How is the Senate going to tell 75 to 80 million voters that their candidate can’t take the office for which he was just voted in? :rofl:
Can you imagine people’s heads exploding? :rofl:
-
I am sure that the ability to hold office affects the ability to get on ballots. Just like foreign citizens can't run because they can't hold office. Trump running would have to rely on write in ballots.
-
.
-
🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️
-
So the justification for impeachment is to prevent future POSSIBLE actions by Trump. Uh, whut? :crazy:
-
So the justification for impeachment is to prevent future POSSIBLE actions by Trump. Uh, whut? :crazy:
It's also to smear the entire Trump family, so they are less likely to seek public office.
Additionally, anyone else from outside the elite circles of power contemplating running for president will think twice before being subjected to the non-stop harassment, obstruction, investigations and bad press -- tactics meant to thwart any attempts of accomplishing what you set out to do.
-
Additionally, anyone else from outside the elite circles of power contemplating running for president will think twice before being subjected to the non-stop harassment, obstruction, investigations and bad press -- tactics meant to thwart any attempts of accomplishing what you set out to do.
You may have described clearly what is going on. Trump was clearly in it for the nation and people, not the party or the oligarchs.
He has to be utterly destroyed to prevent further uprisings by the unwashed masses. The career ruling class is terrified of what he represents.
-
You may have described clearly what is going on. Trump was clearly in it for the nation and people, not the party or the oligarchs.
He has to be utterly destroyed to prevent further uprisings by the unwashed masses. The career ruling class is terrified of what he represents.
Yep. Term limits is one solution to the life-long leeches who control our lives and divide us for their individual and party gain.
Until we elect enough people who are willing to serve a maximum of 2-3 terms in Congress, we'll never get the ones intent on dying in office to call a vote on term limits. That would be like vampires asking to install skylights.
-
Dnc doing dnc things. Selective editing tweets and vids. Trumps lawyer tearing them a new one by showing the uncut vids.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Crazed Democrats Caught FAKING IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
https://youtu.be/ZZu0RSc_EWU
-
It's also to smear the entire Trump family, so they are less likely to seek public office.
Additionally, anyone else from outside the elite circles of power contemplating running for president will think twice before being subjected to the non-stop harassment, obstruction, investigations and bad press -- tactics meant to thwart any attempts of accomplishing what you set out to do.
Why dey so sked? I wondah, wondah, wondah. . . oooh oooh oooh. . . :crazy:
Nah. None of that going on. Not proven in court brah. . .
Until they are. . . :hmm:
-
Why dey so sked? I wondah, wondah, wondah. . . oooh oooh oooh. . . :crazy:
Nah. None of that going on. Not proven in court brah. . .
Until they are. . . :hmm:
As Crowder mentions, it's also meant to demean and guilt the Trump supporters into dropping their support for the GOP, Conservatives and Trump. If they can get Trump convicted of the impeachment charges, it'll go a long way toward legitimizing their resistance -- something they hope "proves" they were right about him from the start.
-
No. They have to convince 51 Senators/VP that the articles of impeachment warrant a guilty verdict. That requires them to "make their case."
If the Senate votes 100% down party lines to convict without a single Republican voting to convict, the impeachment will hurt the Dem party more than Trump.
At his age, does anyone think he's willing to be a piñata again?
I don't think a guilty vote, even strictly along party lines, is going to hurt the democrats.
They have to "make their case" for show. I highly doubt that any of them hasn't already made up their minds. Its not a criminal trial, they don't have to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
So it seems on Thursday during the impeachment trial, the Democrats submitted into evidence a news story regarding Senator’s Lee and Tuberville phone call with Trump. I think it was from the NYT. The story basically said that Trump called Tuberville on Lee’s phone so Lee handed his phone to Tuberville. The story stated that Lee overheard the entire conversation. The article attributed statements made by Lee that Trump tried to coerce Tuberville to not certify election results. Which of course might be a crime. Anyway, it seems the article was made up and totally not true regarding statements made by Senator Lee. Senator Lee then stood up and made a motion to strike the evidence from the trial record due to it being false. And after almost 15 minutes the Democrat impeachment manager had to get up and admit the evidence was false and will be struck from the record.
Total incompetence and complete lies. That is only some of the so called evidence presented. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Before that they placed into evidence a doctored video that took Trump’s statements out of context and left out crucial pieces that would show that he never incited any violence. If these 2 things are not enough to convince the public and the Senate that this whole thing is made up, I don’t know what will.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And in another breaking story. This just keeps getting better and better. A woman whose Tweet was used as evidence against Trump was presented to the Senate on the screen. It turns out that someone falsely placed a blue verified checkmark next to her name and she is coming out and proclaiming her account has never been verified by Twitter and does not have that verified blue checkmark next to her name. More lies from the Democrats who are obviously desperate and grasping at straws for evidence.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
This goes to show how important proper English use is. Especially when it comes to credibility.
https://rumble.com/vdsh4b-trumps-attorney-calls-out-swalwells-usage-of-cavalry-not-calvary-says-he-al.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Just+The+News&ep=2
The Democrats are desperate. What morons they are. This impeachment farce just keeps getting better and better!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
McConnell tells GOP colleagues he will vote to acquit Trump
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-tells-gop-colleagues-he-will-vote-to-acquit-trump/ar-BB1dEpyd
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
So it seems on Thursday during the impeachment trial, the Democrats submitted into evidence a news story regarding Senator’s Lee and Tuberville phone call with Trump. I think it was from the NYT. The story basically said that Trump called Tuberville on Lee’s phone so Lee handed his phone to Tuberville. The story stated that Lee overheard the entire conversation. The article attributed statements made by Lee that Trump tried to coerce Tuberville to not certify election results. Which of course might be a crime. Anyway, it seems the article was made up and totally not true regarding statements made by Senator Lee. Senator Lee then stood up and made a motion to strike the evidence from the trial record due to it being false. And after almost 15 minutes the Democrat impeachment manager had to get up and admit the evidence was false and will be struck from the record.
Total incompetence and complete lies. That is only some of the so called evidence presented. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Before that they placed into evidence a doctored video that took Trump’s statements out of context and left out crucial pieces that would show that he never incited any violence. If these 2 things are not enough to convince the public and the Senate that this whole thing is made up, I don’t know what will.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You cant convince morons not to do moron things.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
You cant convince morons not to do moron things.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
But, you can convince them to vote for Democrats!
-
But, you can convince them to vote for Democrats!
And they do!
-
Well, Trump was acquitted of his charge as I predicted. The Democrats threw up a Hail Mary and lost. They knew they were going to lose. Obviously they never had the votes. And while 7 Republicans voted to convict it was still a far cry from the almost impossible to reach 67 votes.
Now will the Democrats finally quit wasting our tax dollars and fucking get to work and do something constructive.
-
Well, Trump was acquitted of his charge as I predicted. The Democrats threw up a Hail Mary and lost. They knew they were going to lose. Obviously they never had the votes. And while 7 Republicans voted to convict it was still a far cry from the almost impossible to reach 67 votes.
Now will the Democrats finally quit wasting our tax dollars and fucking get to work and do something constructive.
There were already stories circulating that some AG somewhere is working on criminal charges against Trump.
They can't let him quietly slip into the night. They NEED him to bait people into clicking links and continue the demonization of his policies and the 700M+ voters who support him.
Their idea of unity is when everyone who voted for Trump begs for forgiveness and accepts the Left's ideology as their own.
The Borg are a good analogy.
-
You cant convince morons not to do moron things.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
“Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others.
The same applies when you are stupid.”
-
The beat goes on...(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210214/f11e85d19253fbf49d51ca3b6e813ed9.jpg)
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
The beat goes on...(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210214/f11e85d19253fbf49d51ca3b6e813ed9.jpg)
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
(https://i.imgur.com/PFuxYcm.jpg?1)
-
https://rumble.com/vdvbol-media-dont-want-you-to-see-what-greeted-him-in-streets-of-florida....html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
https://rumble.com/vdvbol-media-dont-want-you-to-see-what-greeted-him-in-streets-of-florida....html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Don’t know if you saw my earlier post but the other day I went to lunch with a friend and while driving through the heart of Prescott there was a Trump rally and flag waving on the main intersection. At least 30-40 people around the intersection. If there is such a thing as Trump country I would say it is right here in Prescott. He is much loved and I don’t think his popularity has waned any here at least.