‘It’s open season on the president’: Anonymous op-ed unleashes fresh West Wing meltdown

#651
#651
BowlBrother85 said:
The money wasn't released on time... and Sen. Alexander's Twitter statement speaks for itself. It was inappropriate for Trump to withhold aid to the Ukraine as a means of pressuring their president into announcing an investigation into a political opponent of his. Sen. Alexander made this very clear.
Click to expand...
It was. We've been over this. Trump signed the release before the deadline.

And that statement is clear. He felt it was inappropriate, but not worthy of impeachment. Again... You caught him speeding in a school zone and overplayed your hand.

Now, back to your arguments that Trump broke the law...? Remember those times I kept asking for you to quote the laws he broke? You kept referring to "Constitution" this and "DoJ" that... All you could ever do was pull "should haves" out of...wherever it is you reach for them,.

Remember? Your arguments that would make it more than an opinion about "inappropriate" were:




The Constitution is a global document that affords the people who are politically expedient to your party immunity from foreign investigation of foreign crimes, committed on foreign soil.

Those foreign crimes should be investigated by the US DoJ.

It's an impeachable offense for a President to implement any foreign policy that may also be politically beneficial to him.

A presidential cabinet has the right to implement foreign policy, but the elected leader of that cabinet doesn't.

The money was withheld, but it was released on time.




We all know why this is the bunker you're held up in with no ammo and a lifetime supply of Spam. It's because you have no arguments, and so all you have is a misplayed appeal to authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, StarRaider and NorthDallas40
#653
#653
BowlBrother85 said:
No. That was not the reason that Sen. Lamar Alexander provided in his Twitter statement for voting to acquit. Sen. Lamar Alexander specifically stated that the Democratic Party House managers had proven their case. Sen. Alexander gave that as the reason for why no new witnesses should be called. No new witnesses were needed because the Democrats had already proven their case "with a mountain of evidence." Sen. Alexander explained that he voted to acquit because he didn't believe that Trump's misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense or justified his removal from office. Those were his words; not mine. And he didn't leave any room for any misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
Yes that was his OPINION because he voted to acquit!

Watching you jump thru hoops saying he voted against what he thought is absolutely hilarious 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#655
#655
Apparently several of you missed civics class and still do not understand how impeachment works even after just going through one. It is up to the House, and the House only, to call witnesses and present all evidence to the Senate. Then the Senate votes on it. The Senate does not, under normal circumstances, call more witnesses and start investigating again. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, Suck it up and realize the House blew it.
 
#656
#656
BowlBrother85 said:
No. That was not the reason that Sen. Lamar Alexander provided in his Twitter statement for voting to acquit. Sen. Lamar Alexander specifically stated that the Democratic Party House managers had proven their case. Sen. Alexander gave that as the reason for why no new witnesses should be called. No new witnesses were needed because the Democrats had already proven their case "with a mountain of evidence." Sen. Alexander explained that he voted to acquit because he didn't believe that Trump's misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense or justified his removal from office. Those were his words; not mine. And he didn't leave any room for any misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

Which is the exact response I gave you. They did not prove a case worthy of impeachment, and yet they impeached. Thus...and this is not difficult...they did not prove their case.


Again... He's saying that he felt they proved that he was speeding in a school zone, but did not prove justification for their actions to impeach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#657
#657
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes that was his OPINION because he voted to acquit!

Watching you jump thru hoops saying he voted against what he thought is absolutely hilarious 😂
Click to expand...
There is more than one reason a Senator could vote to acquit. Sen. Alexander explained his reasoning very clearly. Alexander specifically stated that the House managers had proven their case. Alexander also stated that Trump's conduct was inappropriate. Alexander's reason for voting to acquit had nothing to do with the evidence. Alexander just didn't think it justified the punitive action being taken against Trump.
 
#658
#658
BowlBrother85 said:
There are more than one reason a Senator could vote to acquit. Sen. Alexander explained his reasoning very clearly. Alexander specifically stated that the House managers had proven their case. Alexander also stated that Trump's conduct was inappropriate. Alexander's reason for voting to acquit had nothing to do with the evidence. Alexander just didn't think it justified the punitive action being taken against Trump.
Click to expand...
Again... He's saying that he felt they proved that he was speeding in a school zone, but did not prove justification for their actions to impeach.
 
#659
#659
825VOL said:
Apparently several of you missed civics class and still do not understand how impeachment works even after just going through one. It is up to the House, and the House only, to call witnesses and present all evidence to the Senate. Then the Senate votes on it. The Senate does not, under normal circumstances, call more witnesses and start investigating again. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, Suck it up and realize the House blew it.
Click to expand...
The House didn't blow anything. Sen. Alexander acknowledged that the House managers did prove their case against Trump. The Senate does not have to call new witnesses, but they can and John Bolton had signaled an intent to testify if he had been subpoenaed. Once again, I'm just pointing directly to Sen. Lamar Alexander's own statement. Sen. Alexander specifically acknowledged in his statement which was posted to Twitter, that the House managers did prove their case, and that Trump's conduct was inappropriate.
 
#661
#661
You know, that guy works for a living. Working for a living is beneficial to himself. We should kill him.



Wait. What?


Yep. Here's video of him at work, and photocopies of his paycheck. We have him dead to rights.


Wait... What?!



Loading rifle...


No! No! Takes rifle. It's not illegal to work for a living!

But it's beneficial to himself! I showed you the video!


Yes. You've proven that he works for a living. But we don't kill people for that.













"His statement clearly indicates that he believes I proved my case."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#663
#663
Orange_Crush said:
So, what was their case then?

Your argument undercuts itself. You're basically arguing that he said they presented a mountain of evidence that proved that he shouldn't be impeached. And here's the kick to the gonads.
































They still impeached him. The testimony you're relying on is saying that they didn't prove a case for impeachment, and yet they impeached him. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
He said they didn't meet the burden of proof to impeach, so he couldn't vote to impeach. IOW, he basically said that it was his opinion that they proved that Trump was doing 45 MPH in a school zone, but that they'd had no right to apply the death penalty for having done so.

So, again... You're using a singular opinion as an appeal to authority fallacious argument, and even that appeal undermines your stance.

It's staggering.
Click to expand...

BowlBrother85 said:
No, he did not! At no point did Sen. Lamar Alexander ever state that Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof. That is a falsehood on your part. In fact, Sen. Alexander said just the opposite. You need to read that statement again.
Click to expand...


Bump, BB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#664
#664
BowlBrother85 said:
There is more than one reason a Senator could vote to acquit. Sen. Alexander explained his reasoning very clearly. Alexander specifically stated that the House managers had proven their case. Alexander also stated that Trump's conduct was inappropriate. Alexander's reason for voting to acquit had nothing to do with the evidence. Alexander just didn't think it justified the punitive action being taken against Trump.
Click to expand...
No there really isn’t when it comes to the bar of did the House prove their case or not. There simply isn’t. But you’re gonna give us at least 10 more damn posts claiming there is 😂
 
#667
#667
BowlBrother85 said:
Read his statement... Sen. Alexander says very clearly that House Democrats DID PROVE THEIR CASE WITH A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.
Click to expand...
SMH


You do realize what you just agreed to, right? That they made a case and proved it, but the case wasn't worthy of their action. IOW, they did not prove a case for impeachment, which is what they did.


And you're hiding behind this toothpick because you've never been able to formulate a lucid argument that can disagree with the Senator. IOW, you have never been able to offer anything besides irrational rants and personal preferences that would indicate that Trump broke the law, much less in such a way that should reach the level of impeachment.

And so, here you are. Stark naked, hiding behind a toothpick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#668
#668
BowlBrother85 said:
Read his statement... Sen. Alexander says very clearly that House Democrats DID PROVE THEIR CASE WITH A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.
Click to expand...
His statement is irrelevant he voted to acquit

IPSO FACTO

they did not prove their case in his opinion.

YOUR TURN!
 
#669
#669
ajvol01 said:
Key point: the case was never worthy of impeachment
Click to expand...
Opinions will vary on that... typically, down party lines. However, Sen. Lamar Alexander did at least acknowledge that Trump had withheld aid to the Ukraine, at least in part, to "encourage" President Zelensky to announce an investigation into Joe Biden. He also acknowledged in the same statement that this was inappropriate.
 
#671
#671
Orange_Crush said:
SMH


You do realize what you just agreed to, right? That they made a case and proved it, but the case wasn't worthy of their action. IOW, they did not prove a case for impeachment, which is what they did.


And you're hiding behind this toothpick because you've never been able to formulate a lucid argument that can disagree with the Senator. IOW, you have never been able to offer anything besides irrational rants and personal preferences that would indicate that Trump broke the law, much less in such a way that should reach the level of impeachment.

And so, here you are. Stark naked, hiding behind a toothpick.
Click to expand...
BTW you are welcome on me getting him to give you the continual setups to tear apart. We all have a role to play 😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top