Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[2A_Tom]

It is the same thing all the time.

 

[Libertarian01]

For those interested here is a link to President Trumps lawyers arguments:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6&start=132

Regards,

Doug

 

[nonobaddog]

You guys better hope he gets re-elected. I've stayed silent because he could get re-elected. I simply don't know how the wind will blow. But If he's not re-elected, the only silver lining I can give you, is the solace in the fact that will probably be banned.

If Trump doesn't get re-elected they could end up banning all sorts of stuff - like bread, toilet paper, free speech, liberty, justice...

 

[2A_Tom]

We are not allowed to discuss what would happen then.

 

[DefeatingPropaganda]

What I want to know is will any of these Democrat criminals ever get prosecuted?

-Everyone involved with the FISA abuse and using anti-terrorist surveillance tools on American citizens

-schiff for coordinating with the whistleblower and lying under oath

-Brennan, Clapper, etc for sedition

-Everyone who has illegally leaked and unmasked Americans on phone calls



Lately, it's, "Trump is waiting until after the election bc it would seem too political now."

Well I guess I hope so, but seems like another trash excuse. There's always a reason it's not today but tomorrow. Also, what an incredibly risky strategy... What if he loses?

The Left has a completely BOGUS investigation (Mueller), and they get numerous indictments and jail sentences (yeah they were unrelated to what he was actually supposed to be investigating, but that makes it even worse! Even without core evidence they get arrests while WE GET NOTHING.)

I hate how cowardly Republicans are.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I hate how cowardly Republicans are.

I wish the 253 Republicans in Congress would grow a pair half the size of Trump and stop taking , there is a handful out there, but not nearly enough.

 

[Ingomike]

What I want to know is will any of these Democrat criminals ever get prosecuted?

-Everyone involved with the FISA abuse and using anti-terrorist surveillance tools on American citizens

-schiff for coordinating with the whistleblower and lying under oath

-Brennan, Clapper, etc for sedition

-Everyone who has illegally leaked and unmasked Americans on phone calls



Lately, it's, "Trump is waiting until after the election bc it would seem too political now."

Well I guess I hope so, but seems like another trash excuse. There's always a reason it's not today but tomorrow. Also, what an incredibly risky strategy... What if he loses?

The Left has a completely BOGUS investigation (Mueller), and they get numerous indictments and jail sentences (yeah they were unrelated to what he was actually supposed to be investigating, but that makes it even worse! Even without core evidence they get arrests while WE GET NOTHING.)

I hate how cowardly Republicans are.

I have been saying in the impeachment trial there will be no witnesses. The corruption runs so deep in politics today that both parties would be greatly impacted by the fallout. As for after election investigations, Trump has minimal ability to affect them, the deep state, corrupt politicians of both parties, and the media will run cover for past transgressions. I just pray he wins to keep the ball rolling the right way...

 

[Hatin Since 87]

According to some, it’s obvious he’s guilty and should be impeached.

 

[KG1]

Is it me, our did it really seem like the house impeachment managers got their lunch handed to them today?

I watched the whole thing today and IMO I think the defense got off to a good start and if they continue this way I think they will convince at least the GOP Senators to end this thing without witnesses.

 

[Dead Duck]

I know it's very complicated with what they're trying to show with the time line and all the different departments overlapping everywhere. They are trying to present an uncomplicated picture so it's not too overwhelming. So far they're on course. It would be easy to get messy quick.

As long as I don't see any storyboards. They work great when explaining movies and shows in production meetings but I'm not sure they would go over well for this...... and I just hate storyboards.




Now if they were to used powerpoint and laser pointers.....

 

[Kutnupe14]

I watched the whole thing today and IMO I think the defense got off to a good start and if they continue this way I think they will convince at least the GOP Senators to end this thing without witnesses.

Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.

 

[Dead Duck]

Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.

No.
They need to wrap it up quickly so the moron democrats that have been wasting my country's time and my money can get back to work and stop sitting on their asses planning this stupid coup against the greatest president this nation has ever had in office.



Anything else Negative Nancy?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Innocent until proven guilty.


The house did not exhaust all avenues of legal recourse for documents and testimony through the courts, it's not obstruction until this is done and not complied with.

There has been no abuse of power proven, Ukraine President Zelensky has been on national TV in both Ukraine and at the UN saying that there was no quid pro quo.
Even the Transcript shows there was none, there was no "I" want you to do us a favor, it was "WE" want you to do us a favor.

Now we find out that the House has never launched an impeachment inquiry against a President without a vote of the full House authorizing it, something they did not do before
before the Trump impeachment vote. Many other things, just to much to list and this is from off the top of my head.

I mean really put yourself in the position of this being a life or death implication for YOU. Do you honestly think you would be convicted.
I have seen no evidence, all hearsay, presumptions and beliefs which is not something that can be used to convict, that is unless you're the 3 Stooges in Congress with
the democrat Lemmings following having a Yellow Brick Road moment hopping a skipping arm in arm.

All a sham, how many times have we heard Democratic members in Congress say the phrase "WE must impeach so he won't be re-elected"

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.

Someone has TDS bad, and the only cure is some impeachin'.

 

[KG1]

Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.

Ask that of the House when they gave up without seeking full recourse. It was rather obvious back then that they didn't want to take the time and felt they had a case to move forward with on articles without that testimony. Why then should'nt that be sufficient enough for the Senate trial?

The onus is on the House to bring forward their case for articles to the Senate. The Senate is charged with making a decision based on that evidence presented to them.

The President has the right to protect the office that he holds no matter what you think and has every right to seek Executive priviledge especially if his administration and counsel feel that they are being treated unjustly.

 

[drillsgt]

Why would someone seeking the truth not want witnesses to testify? The president said he did everything perfect. If you think the process is a sham, why not have the witnesses show up and prove it's a sham? Not allowing witnesses, even if you think its a sham, makes it seem like there's a cover-up, and that no one wants to hear things that would be problematic.

The democrats called plenty of 'witnesses' during the hearings.

 

[Doug]

Meh.
If Trump is not convicted and sent to jail, the Democrats and 85% of the media will proclaim a cover-up and a rigged trial.

Schiff said he heard that Trump said any Republican Senator who didn't stand with him would have their head put on a pike.

This is projection. Any Democrat who deviates from the party position (except with permission to aid re-election) is doxed and faces a primary opponent who has full funding from the DNC.

The Democrats have done EVERYTHING of which they are accusing Trump.

Obama colluded with the Russians when he said, "Tell Vladimir I'll be able to be more flexible after the election."
Biden is on U Tube bragging about using a "quid pro quo" to force the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor.
Pelosi abused the power of the House by forcing an impeachment for political reasons.

Trump is being impeached for acting like a Democrat. In this media driven society, only Democrats are above the law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ask that of the House when they gave up without seeking full recourse. It was rather obvious back then that they didn't want to take the time and felt they had a case to move forward with on articles without that testimony. Why then should'nt that be sufficient enough for the Senate trial?

The onus is on the House to bring forward their case for articles to the Senate. The Senate is charged with making a decision based on that evidence presented to them.

The President has the right to protect the office that he holds no matter what you think and has every right to seek Executive priviledge especially if his administration and counsel feel that they are being treated unjustly.

That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.

 

[MCgrease08]

That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.

But it's not the Senate's job. The house is responsible for the investigation and gathering of evidence and presentation of said evidence. The Senate is responsible for hearing the evidence gathered and making a decision.

We don't ask members of the jury to take on the role of investigator and prosecutor in the middle of a trial.

 

[jamil]

That's not a defense. You're essentially saying, that because the House didn't do it's job thoroughly, the Senate need not either. If you simply want to end the trial because it would be detrimental to the POTUS, ok, say that. But don't say that the president has exonerated, nor that he did not commit any crimes, if you are unwilling to hear the people that have the information to prove one way or the other.

The investigation is supposed to happen in the House. They were in a big hurry to get articles voted in before Christmas. The House hearings were entered into evidence. It’s not on the Senate to continue an investigation the House didn’t finish.

It’s often compared to criminal proceedings, where the senate is the court. The House never proved that there was a quid pro quo for the purpose of personal gain at the exclusion of a broader purpose, yet they took their case to court anyway, and are now expecting the court to finish the investigation. Just because you have an outcome you want to happen doesn’t make it the just outcome.

List the crimes you think were proven and the evidence compelling you to that conclusion. Articles one and two: ready, go.