Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
petra22 said:
Oh drcube, Nixon wasn’t always corrupt. Honest people voted for him and expected him to do what was good for the country and he did, but then he got blindsided and sent people to break laws, at least that’s what I sort of remember…
Click to expand...
Oh, Perta, I guess I consider committing crimes as a corruption
petra22 said:
That’s why Republicans AND Democrats together voted to impeach… or were going to… So don’t be so hard on folks. Give the benefit of the doubt… God will judge you just the same way.
Click to expand...
God didn’t make me to ignore extortion in the highest office in the land.
 
drcube said:
If the survey is done correctly, that’s 83% of all Americans, including those on the coast and in fly-over country
Click to expand...
Well, as Lamar Alexander said, we have a survey coming up in Nov.

www.foxnews.com

Swing-vote GOP Sen. Alexander comes out against witnesses, paving way for imminent Trump acquittal

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced late Thursday night that he would not support additional witnesses in President Trump's "shallow, hurried and wholly partisan" Senate impeachment trial, seemingly ending Democrats' hopes of hearing testimony from former national security adviser John...
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Lamar is a true statesman. The democrats have one campaigning for president who I believe might be able to beat Trump. But of course they won’t let her run.
 
Looks like Trump will be acquitted Monday or perhaps even Saturday.

It’s going to be an interesting State of the Union Address.

Every member of Cogress attending may applaud this time around at everything Trump says.

(Dems might not show up)
 
I pray it will be over tomorrow night.

America can’t take too much more of “The Adam Schiff” show. I know I can’t.

He was the ringmaster of this circus.
 
No.
Your scenario does not involve the president seeking foreign help to find dirt on a political opponent in an election.
 
Schiff was a true American hero. I am proud and inspired by his attempt to maintain the Republic as a nation of laws and self government.
 
It’s their house. Of course they show up. Who else to invite the Impeached Presídent
 
Last edited:
He will. But what can he say. He made sure with no witnesses, the trial was a sham, and now he is stuck with that.
 
Maximus1 said:
Schiff was a true American hero. I am proud and inspired by his attempt to maintain the Republic as a nation of laws and self government.
Click to expand...
Schiff wants to portray himself as a hero, but he stands up there and yammers on and doesn’t seem concerned when he isn’t telling the truth, but fabricating conversations and transcripts. He just wants to be in front of the camera crowing like a rooster.
 
" Portray himself like a hero"? I guess that’s what doing his job looks like to you. He looked too busy working long hard days to worry about nonsense to me.
He ended up being extremely effective because he conveyed sincerity and clarity in the face of movement that in legal terms, argued that the President was no longer bound to earthly law. Even fundemental ones our founders warned could upend the Republic.He brought curruption into the light and exposed it. Where lies and concealment just couldn’t hide it. And America saw. Now it is up to Americans to care that our Constitution continue, or grow indifferent and undeserving of it’s freedoms in the service of one man.
 
Last edited:
He has always been a party loyalist. Which is the final word on his service. To call a trial shallow when you choose to omit witnesses and documents to be done for the Super Bowl is as amusing as it sounds when you read it.
On a serious note, I will concede this. Trump said he can shoot someone on 5th and ," they will still vote for me." He boasted it and today, he delivers it. He is free to the American throne.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, Many Americans are sick and tired of Democrats applying their Kavanaugh tactics to get their way when they don’t like things happening that further impede getting their way. Impeachment definitely mirrors that charade as well. In their effort to redefine everything, they’ve redefined corruption as standing in the way of getting the things they want. And what is that? Redefining life to support abortion, redefining gender, redefining marriage, pushing to legally legitimize all sorts of immorality, redefining socialism as good and necessary, and it all boils down to having to control people for their ends. They will pursue this with any, and every tactic at their disposal. That’s what they’ve become, redefining virtue to vice and vice to virtue.

So this phase of impeachment will soon be over, but that will not stop the Democrats. They simply want their own way and then force everyone to follow it. So they won’t stop until Trump is gone from office, They won’t even stop after he’s out of office because they are vindictive and say so publicly in many forms every day through a complicit MSM.

What will be interesting to watch next is how low Democrats will stoop. I don’t think there is a low the Democrats (and particularly the secularist progressive wing) will pursue to that end. It is really quite shameful…
 
petra22 said:
I was wondering, really… think about any President. He or she makes a campaign promise. Say to cut Smog emissions on electric cars. And he/she spends or suspends money to a certain company until that company complies with certain requests… His/her intended outcome is good for the country–an unintended outcome-- is that it is good for his/her re-election… Promises made promises kept, kind of thing. Is this an abuse of power because it is good for his/her next campaign??? He used government funds. Perhaps withheld government funds until compliance…?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this involves anything illegal.

Many things elected officials do are legal and good for their reelection. That’s okay. When you illegally withhold foreign aid until a county actually gives you dirt on a rival, that’s different.
 
I thought about addressing your Democrats want something post. ( Your complaints)
I won’t. Because it is really an," excuse to self," for embracing a man who will not loose a vote if he shoots someone on 5th. Trump proved that boast I will give him that. He strong armed Republicans in the Senate. And they buckled under. The Senate is no longer a deliberative body. This bunch made it a" no witnesses so we can be done for the game,body. ( I can almost hear, " so, who cares about the Senate.)
I thought about what you think you are entitled to, and I am not going to apologise to you for being alive.
I don’t think it worth much listening to someone disgruntled that I am alive and have the audscity to have free will.
And I am not going to offer you an excuse that America can’t be like it was because you don’t get your way
 
Last edited:
I agree. Cheating in an election is omitted.
The GOP think it is not impeachable if subjectively, you think you are a better candidate for America.
Since every candidate believes that, it cancels out. You can substitute breathing.
Then all you are left with is cheating. And the GOP says unimpeachable.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
So long as the defense even suggests that the prosecutions case is deficient, the prosecution has reason to call more witnesses. One of the defenses’ arguments that no one so far has directly testified that withholding aid was tied to investigations.

Concede the facts laid out in the impeachment articles and we’ll stop asking for more evidence.
Click to expand...
I think this captures the situation rather nicely (exchange between Schiff and Jay Sekulow, Trump’s lawyer)
Sekulow: “After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case… [pauses for response] That’s what you said.”

Schiff: “We did.”

Sekulow: “Well then I don’t think we need any witnesses.”
Click to expand...
If the House is happy with their case then it’s time to move to a vote.
 
Lol
That’s one of the worse legal arguments I have ever heard. I guess grasping at anything, it appears a savior. You don’t exclude another eye witness just because one has testified. Not that argument coupled with, “the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It is laughable
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top