Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drcube said:
More falsehoods. The prosecutor’s investigation into Burisma was dormant. Nothing was happening. Causing a corrupt prosecutor to be fired would result in the possibility of a renewed investigation into Burisma, which could potentially put the company his son was working for in legal jeopardy.
Click to expand...
Indeed on of the specific complaints against the corrupt prosecutor was the failure to cooperate with the legal actions against Burisma in the UK.
drcube said:
The right wing view on this makes no sense, but it doesn’t stop it from being repeated over and over again.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t think they’re Trump tools, but if Hawley or Blunt voted for witnesses, I would absolutely oppose them in their next primaries. Absolutely. If, because of one of them, this cost to the country doesn’t end, I will never forgive him.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, neither have the backbone to challenge the corrupt Trump administration. It’s good to know that anyone that opposes a corrupt Trump administration wouldn’t be forgiven by you though. Really gives the rest of us a sense of what it takes to be a Republican politician in America and the constituency they need to pacify.
 
drcube said:
Really gives the rest of us a sense of what it takes to be a Republican politician in America
Click to expand...
He has a point. As Senator Murkowski notes on voting against witnesses.
“I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything”

If there is no intention to have a fair trial, it’s good to admit the failure and stop wasting time and money. We
ll see how that all plays out in the campaign.
 
dvdjs said:
He has a point. As Senator Murkowski notes on voting against witnesses.
“I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything”

If there is no intention to have a fair trial, it’s good to admit the failure and stop wasting time and money. We
ll see how that all plays out in the campaign.
Click to expand...
There would be a fair trial, but voters like @Ridgerunner would not forgive their Senators for allowing one to happen.
 
We have a Supreme Justice presiding.

If Trump is acquitted without additional witnesses, would you conclude the SJ enabled it ?
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
40.png
Donkey:
Throughout all this I’ve wondered what exactly propels this costly and very public sham.

For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Ephesians 6:12
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, are you saying that the patriotic Americans who are pushing for Trump to be held accountable for his actions are evil, and following Satan?
Click to expand...
They are definitely following the lies that Adam Schiff and other democrats are proclaiming from their
microphones. And the Adam Schiff scare tactics.
 
drcube said:
Don’t worry, neither have the backbone to challenge the corrupt Trump administration.
Click to expand...
It’s not that. No Republican can win statewide office in Missouri without the 7th District, which is extremely conservative and pro-Trump. It’s also where Blunt lives. It’s not a matter of backbone, it’s a matter of being faithful to your constituency.

And I could forgive voting against Trump if I believed it was honestly done. Romney’s opposition appears to be personal and petty; not very admirable in a senator.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
I get that you don’t like the rules of the Senate apparently, but that is the way this thing works. It is a bit disingenuous to cry foul after the game has been played when everyone knew the rules going in. I didn’t like how Schiff handled the impeachment in the House, but he technically followed the rules.

Also, Murkowski is a no-vote on witnesses.

Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal | Fox News
Click to expand...
I don’t want to get my hopes up because I remember
when John McCain cast the deciding vote on
Obamacare and Chief Justice Roberts also gave a
disappointing vote regarding health care so you don’t know what people are thinking and what they will do
when it comes to the actual vote.
Pray! Pray! Pray!

@Dr_Meinheimer
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he might imagine that he is presiding at a trial.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Kelli said a trial with no witnesses is a half trial.
One fact that I am happy came out is in 250 years of Impeachment they average 30 per Senate trial. And both president’s impeached had live senAte witnesses that never testified in the house.
That ends the CHARADE that they had to be called in the house
 
I would love to hear John Bolton’s testimony about Donald Trump’s dealings with the Ukraine leaders.
Unfortunately, his book does not come out until March.
That book should be a best seller before it ever hits the newsstands.
 
If they don’t call witnesses it is an outlyer in history. As Kelly said a half trial.
I don’t know why anyone would want a half trial
 
7_Sorrows said:
They are definitely following the lies that Adam Schiff and other democrats are proclaiming from their
microphones. And the Adam Schiff scare tactics.
Click to expand...
I am very hesitant to reply to this post, but I will.

The House Managers are telling the truth.

The President’s lawyers, on the other hand, are not.

www.vanityfair.com

Adam Schiff Shreds Trump Lawyer for Outright Impeachment Lies

The Democratic lawmaker was having none of Cipollone’s cascade of bulls-t.
www.vanityfair.com www.vanityfair.com

www.mediaite.com

If Trump's Team Continues to Lie in Senate, They Should Be Disbarred

Nothing -- I mean nothing -- can stop Donald Trump from lying. He has clocked in as president more than 15,000 false or misleading claims.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

www.mediaite.com

Claire McCaskill Rips Trump Counsel's 'Demonstrable Lie'

Former Democratic senator-turned-NBC contributor Claire McCaskill was on MSNBC's reaction panel to Donald Trump's impeachment trial, and she took the lead in blasting the president's lawyers for telling a "demonstrable lie" right in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-lawyer-biggest-lie-ever-senate_n_5e280c41c5b67d8874a96e63
 
Maximus1 said:
No witnesses means no legitimacy
Click to expand...
Charging a man for doing what he has a right to do is illegitimate.

When Bolton’s book comes out and has no quote from Trump saying “John, don’t give them anything until they jail the Bidens” or something like that, the whole thing will collapse along with sales of Bolton’s book.
YourNameHere said:
That book should be a best seller before it ever hits the newsstands.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I think it will be “yesterday’s news” and will, in any event, be a disappointment as regards Urkaine. It will be red meat to the Trump haters in other ways, though. Bolton can regale them with stories about Trump passing gas or something. They’ll love it.
 
Bolton’s confirmation that Trump held up funds from the Ukraine would be confirmation that Trump broke the law.
That is a lot more of a story than Trump’s gastric tract.
If Trump has nothing to hide, let Bolton testify.
Those who love Donald Trump won’t be swayed regardless of what Bolton says about him. But it would confirm that Trump was guilty of holding up funding from the Ukraine that had already been approved by both houses of Congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top