Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
The charge against Trump is of holding back appropriated aid to get dirt on his opponent.
Click to expand...
Aid wasn’t withheld. All conjecture on intent.
dvdjs said:
The impeachable offense of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
Not without Senate conviction. Obstruction of Justice is there backup used to suggest fighting their sham charges is obstruction. Same tactic they used with Russia and failed.
 
dvdjs said:
Sworn testimony indicates otherwise.
Click to expand...
And other sworn testimony indicates not.
dvdjs said:
Huh? he can be impeached without Senate conviction.
His removal requires Senate conviction.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that doesn’t equal guilty, especially by such a partisan House of clowns.
dvdjs said:
was one of the counts against Nixon.
Click to expand...
Don’t care. Dems are corrupt and partisan and have no intention of anything except removal. Have been from day one and cooperating with them will get you no where.
 
It is incredible to believe Trump’s single interest in his life to investigate " if someone is making money off their dads name " coincidentally happened with his political rival.
Not impossible. I would say WINNING two consecutive lotteries would POSE equal odds. THIS IS PRECISELY WHY I SAID IT. Eventually we can say yhe laws of probability makes it not believable. And the burden of proof need only be clear and convincing. Any other consideration would be irrelevant. You attribute yours to me. But that is not evidence or material. The defense in 2016 no longer questions Trump’s willingness and desire. Ukraine shows Trump exerts effort and motivation to enlist foreign aid. But it is not part of this case apparently. Why give cover when the Dems got him dead to rights
 
Last edited:
It isn’t a defense to a video of a person shooting another that the police guy invrstigating is a terrible person. That is what’s great about rules of evidence
 
And there is no evidence. Your defense is only he is a bad guy. They had the whole whistleblower and quid pro quo phone call charge but oops, dastardly trump released the call transcript. Can’t use that anymore, forget about whistleblower he is no longer needed. Now they have to switch gears, charge bribery, extortion, obstruction and trot out a bunch a characters telling us their opinion of what they think and hope the American people bite on that.

Full of hot air. When this falls through we’ll see what they come up with next.
 
They are Trump’s hand picked US AMBASSADORS
ONE, gave him a million dollar donation. Good luck attacking credibility.
. Their testimony is evidence that everything including the call memo verifies. The best way to make the case is dependant on adopting a factual defense. But Democrats won’t get that lucky.
The Whistleblower is verified. Dems don’t need him because everything is provable FIRST HAND. Dems No longer need him to prove anything.
If you need not call a witness to proove your case, it is because everything else proves it. Dems won’t allow collateral issues like I didn’t commit bribery because the Whistleblower gave 50 bucks to Hillary. They will stomp out any chance someone could be confused enough to think that has anything to do with bribery.
In this case Dems won’t put on the stand a witness who corroborates everything to remove confusion of prejudicial jury nullification. And Trump wants to make bribery defense like ignore the mountain of evidence, there I an anti Trumper on the planet. After, time to remove the GOP. You sound upset the Dems are going to proove bro and extortion she you were all set to defend against whistleblower and call memo. Lol
 
Last edited:
Okie dokie. Transcript shows nothing. Sorry if that isn’t what you wanted to see.
 
Woodyl57 said:
Nothing is clear and no one testified to anything but opinion.
Click to expand...
The opinion of people working for Trump is that he was withholding misappropriated security aid to get dirt on his opponent. There is no lipstick sufficient to help this pig.
 
That so many here still buy in to the media/ Dems version of events is really stunning.Sadly I think this is reflective of the lock step De m supporters’ overall😳
 
Last edited:
Discuss money, favor, investigate 2016 server, investigate Biden’s company.
Chief of staff admits quid pro quo…get over it. Two Smbasadors admit it. Other ambassador just doesn’t know one way or the other. That about 50% to 75%>
With a president it doesn’t get better.
Wait and see. Democrats will present the evidence in the House, then Schiff will present the case in the Senate. Then we will see. Lol
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Two Smbasadors admit it
Click to expand...
They presumed it was. Taylor admits he never actually spoke to Trump. He got his supposition from Sondland, who said almost verbatim. “I am presuming this is conditional”, more or less. They can’t admit anything, since they had no actual knowledge, so either you are making this up as you go, or are posting in ignorance. Might as well claim the posters on this board admitted it too, since it is worth just as much. We have nothing to admit either.

So we have a guy basing his opinion off of another man’s opinion, without ANY actual instructions from the President to make this a quid pro quo? What a joke this all is. From now on, we can impeach by claiming “he must have meant this, because I think meant this!”

None of it matters anyway. The sooner this is over, the sooner we can get back to important things, like next year’s election and actual government business. Trump’s not going anywhere, and the Democrats all know it. They simply can’t get over losing to him in 2016, and apparently don’t think they can win in 2020, either. I see that a lot with 3rd grade baseball teams, but didn’t expect it from Congress.

But carry on.
 
Last edited:
I am glad you are up on defense of the day. Enjoy it. They last about 48 hours.
Today’s defense is one that won’t last either.
A million people in jail. The tiniest fraction are there because they have video signed confessions. Lol
Lay opinions and expert opinions is the evidentiary issue. The jails are filled with prisoners convicted on opinion.
First, Ambassadors are not Tabla Rosa clones born yesterday released into the world. When they give opinion much will be established as foundation.
Wait and see. Because the hit and run sound bite leaves you if of eventuality.
The hit and run argument you are clinging to may only be today’s pep talk.
The EU AMBASSADOR gave Trump a million dollars. Do you love Trump that much? Why would he hurt Trump? Well, going to jail for lying is why.
Lots of Ambassadors surmising quid pro quo when Trump guys to begin with is powerful evidence. The standard I CLEAR AND CONVINCING. NOT ELIMINATION OF ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
Sondland has a basis to testify against his guy.
That basis is what will likely be heard from you for the first time at the hearing which is ok.
There is a mountain of evidence. Did someone else testify to quid pro quo today?
And don’t overlook the West Point Grad
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top