Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s an honest question, OneSheep. If you have a transcript with conversation going on between two people and the Dems keep telling what they think those words mean and the President and the repubs keep telling what they think those words mean, who should get the benefit of the doubt? Do you follow the rule of law and say innocent until PROVEN guilty? Just repeating an interpretation isn’t going to ever make the interpretation true if the people in the conversation tell an equally acceptable explanation… the dems say he (DT) wanted a favor for personal gain, but tonight they kept saying information and investigation into the 2016 election… but then the dems project that somehow DT is trying to influence the 2020 election. To me that is just wishful thinking. The dems recognize he was looking into Crowdstrike the DNC, Burisma for corruption… Where does the 2020 influence come in? I don’t see how they make that leap. Is it because all the findings about the 2016 election haven’t come to light yet? When all that comes out will it be more reasonable that Donald Trump was asking for information about the 2016 election–and shouldn’t he ask questions about that??? Would you not ask questions if it was your campaign that was interfered with?
 
OneSheep said:
40.png
Jeanne_S:
beating the Dems at their own game.
Click to expand...
This is NOT A GAME. It is a trial, it is supposed to be a legitimate, impartial attempt to ascertain whether a sitting president should be removed from office.

Since when does a legitimate US court stop the use of evidence? It is tyranny.
Aquinas11 said:
Let’s not thwart a potential future outrage campaign!!
Click to expand...
Look up the roles. Roberts just gavels in. He has no role in decisions.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what was impartial about the trial in
the House?
 
Nadler to Senate: “you’re engaged in coverup if you don’t call and consider Bolton testimony”

Looks like Nadler & Dems in House are engaged in coverup, since they…wait for it…failed to call and consider Bolton testimony
 
Last edited:
Schiff has been masterful and extremely effective. He controls the room with his command of the facts and truth. Don’t bother trying to fight that truth, nothing can be done.
It is no wonder that the Trump machine has made it a priority to sick his machine on Schiff to try to slow him down. Now in Trial, Schiff is in his element. Impervious. Armed with the overwhelming facts, only forcing him to argue at midnight after people are to tired to listen, can anything be effective to slow him down.
Fortunately we have video and you tube. So his late night presentation is there for clear headed review.
 
Last edited:
Adam Schiff never varies in his politeness and decorum. A good lawyer is most effective when his affect is respectful.
 
Trump and McConnell cannot win on the devestating facts.
They have control of the documents and first hand witnesses. ( Trump’s Capos a good comparison). They intend to stifle those who would confirm the orders emminating from Trump’s mouth, then, rule in favor of Trump because of the absence of that testimony.
Fraud via stonewalling is the entire Trump strategy on the facts. Use of the power of his office and ability to turn the GOP into his wind up dolls, to hide witnesses and incriminating evidence.( In the only existing institution capable of holding him accountable to the law…the SENATE)
The fact that Sonderland and Parnas, and others, slipped past his fingers is just UNFORTUNATE from his standpoint. Need to have the team all yell traitors and crooks to take care of them.
There will be no witnesses. I PREDICT AT THE CONCLUSION OF OPENING STATEMENT, THE GOP WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON SEGMENTS OF THE HOUSE EVIDENCE THEY WILL NOT PERMIT TO BECOME THE SENATE RECORD. ( THE RESULT…A HAND CRAFTED VERSION OF FACTS THAT ELIMINATES EVIDENCE BASED UPON preordained conclusion and election slogan narrative) Just a facade to hide that predetermined result. It is a sad fact that the result is preordained and the process is then designed to optimize the illusion of legitimacy).

In history this will be a cautionary tale and example about how a president has nothing preventing him from ignoring the law if he has +4 votes in the Senate, and total control of that majority. That scenario eliminates accountability to the law. Of course a cautionary tale is optimistic. It is just as likely to become precedent
 
Last edited:
petra22 said:
Something I heard on the Impeachment trial tonight… Congressional Subpoenas were not issued. The House didn’t vote to send subpoenas, only a few members or something like that??? So the subpoenas were not lawful??? I’m a little confused to say the least…
Click to expand...

Loading…

www.nytimes.com
 
Maximus1 said:
Adam Schiff never varies in his politeness and decorum. A good lawyer is most effective when his affect is respectful.
Click to expand...
He also leaks confidential documents like a sieve,
not a good trait in a lawyer or Representative.

He’s not going to win reelection (my prediction)
 
Theo520 said:
He also leaks confidential documents like a sieve,
not a good trait in a lawyer or Representative.

He’s not going to win reelection (my prediction)
Click to expand...
Bold predction, Theo, given the facts from 2018:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
It reminds me of a discussion in The Lord of the Rings when Frodo first met Strider:
Frodo: “I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler.”
 
There is a mistake that the article attributes to staff. A blunder no doubt Schiff wanted as much as cancer.
Those are pretty lean pickings considering the army scrutinizing his every heart beat looking to weaponizing it.
I feel real cumfy with my statement. These are not credibility erasing statements like that Republicans were banned from the house depos.
 
Theo520 said:
You referenced the General Election, I predict he’ll lose in the Primary to another Democrat. His district won’t go GOP
Click to expand...
I don’t see a Democratic candidate getting more than Schiff. Last election, the closest Dem got 6% of the vote. This time, there are a bunch of Dems running. If you know something about one of them being really popular, do tell.

How are primary elections conducted in California?​

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election – regardless of party preference - move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.
 
Last edited:
He leaks? Lol. Trump is dedicated to hiding the truth from the American people. I imagine anything hidden slipping through the cracks is a problem.
 
He has a safe seat. And if he didn’t he needs to be admired even more. His dedication to advocate the legal position of the House is superior. THEY CALL SUCH BEHAVIOR SELFLESS IF YOU STAND TO LOOSE.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top