Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched most everything. But the upcoming vote of no witnesses is the only drama. It will end any chance at Vindication. People know hiding
 
Maximus1 said:
I watched most everything. But the upcoming vote of no witnesses is the only drama. It will end any chance at Vindication. People know hiding
Click to expand...
And you had no issue with the restrictions the democrats put on President Trump there?

Why are the democrats always okay with the double
standard? Whatever is okay for them to do is not
okay for the republicans. It gets very old.

Are people in that much denial not to notice?
 
This is a trial.
The NSA changed his mind and said he would testify. Let him. Because if you hide him, it’s because you are afraid.
This is trial. There is no double standard Trump can call anyone he wants and the Dems can call nobody at a trial. The trial!
 
Last edited:
You know I’m beginning to think that’s the case.The Dems and all those so emotionally invested in despising Trump have to believe they have a case.Its quite stunning actually😳
 
You know if someone was accused of threatening a witness , and that witness said they never felt threatened, the case would be thrown out in a court of law. There can’t be a threat without the person knowing their being threatened. This is what we have here, the Ukrainians said they never felt forced or threatened and never tied the aid to any investigations. Just all pure Democratic speculation. It’s such a joke.
 
The House was not a trial. And Trump didn’t participate. But the GOP had 3. And all the witnesses are Trump administration people. One gave him a million bucks
 
It’s not difficult. How have impeachment hearings been handled in the past in the House and how have trials been handled in the past in the Senate. The Senate is doing the same thing as the Clinton trial, and the House did something never seen before. The Senate is following precedent, the House threw precedent out the window.
 
Oh I agree.This whole thing has devolved from bribery to coercion to abuse of power power to maybe he had a fleeting thought about doing this.Geez if assumption is enough then God help us all.
 
Maximus1 said:
The House was not a trial. And Trump didn’t participate. But the GOP had 3. And all the witnesses are Trump administration people. One gave him a million bucks
Click to expand...
I remember a lot of people giving testimony. Most was innuendo.
 
Last edited:
That’s not right. There have been witnesses at every impeachment trial. This is the only trial I ever heard of that excluded all witnesses. Ever!
And Clinton had a grand jury where not only did Clinton not participate, but there were not 100 Senators from his own party AS TRUMP HAD to act in Clinton’s defense.
 
Last edited:
Juries are instructed to make reasonable inferences from the evidence using common sense.
If someone walks in from outside, with a wet umbrella, and wet rain coat, it is reasonable to believe it’s raining.
 
Last edited:
It is right. The Senate is following the same procedure precedent as the Clinton trial. Phase 1 of the Clinton trial, open arguments/questions. No witnesses or consideration at that time.
The Senate debated and then a few witnesses were called for dispositions. It was voted on and approved 100-0 after the Senate debate. The Clinton trial voted on witnesses after the Senate debate, as is going to happen during this Senate trial. Precedent being followed. During the House hearing, the defense couldn’t call witnesses, couldn’t cross examine and couldn’t have counsel present on any witnesses called. That is not procedural precedent.
 
Last edited:
Sure but we don’t have people walking in with wet umbrellas and rain coats here! Quite the opposite and even from the Democrats own hand selected witnesses. There is no evidence just speculation. A jury doesn’t convict based on speculation.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
Lack of transparency, read the transcript. Desire for an announcement, hearsay.
Click to expand...
The lack of transparency came from freezing the aid and trying to hide the phone call. It was only after the whistleblower report came out that some of the information was released. Furthermore, Trump prevented many people from testifying.
mrad25 said:
The investigation wasn’t dormant. Posts in this thread and documents prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was.
 
Even the mainstream media is admitting Trumps lawyers made a very cogent case for his exoneration. More winning!
 
drcube said:
The lack of transparency came from freezing the aid and trying to hide the phone call. It was only after the whistleblower report came out that some of the information was released. Furthermore, Trump prevented many people from testifying.
Click to expand...
There was no lack of transparency. The phone call is no ones business, Trump released the transcript of the call when he didn’t have to. There are delays on aid all the time, not all of the aid was delayed. The aid was set to expire in the end of Sept. There was a response to the OMB written by the White House Counsels re: reasons for delaying US aid. Read it. Trump didn’t block anyone he acted well within his right to say he would go to Article 3, the House panicked and decided not to proceed with trying to go forward with the witnesses. Those are the facts.
 
drcube said:
Yes, it was.
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. If it was, the owners of Burismas house would never have been raided and right before the Bidens set forth the motions to get rid of the prosecutor. Read the Ukrainian documents already provided in this thread.
 
Last edited:
It is the words, from his mouth, on audio, and fingers in writing. It is an admission. Looking for dirt on Biden’s doing Trump’s personal business as a personal lawyer.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
Who cares? Rudy was Trump’s personal lawyer, personal lawyers handle their client’s business. That has nothing to do with anything here.
Click to expand...
You’re saying the President had a personal lawyer handling his personal business in Ukraine that included getting a political rival investigated?
Doesn’t that have everything to do with this thread? 🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top