The Impeachment Thread

#36,276
#36,276
ajvol01 said:
What criminal code does it fall under?
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.
 
#36,278
#36,278
evillawyer said:
You mean a guy clarifying (all of 9 minutes later) that he's making a joke is fake news? You got us now.
Click to expand...

It's the same pattern - make up the imagined version of what people are really saying - at least this guy only did it on Twitter; Schiff is doing it in both chambers but whatever necessary I guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs, volfanjustin and 1 other person
#36,279
#36,279
lawgator1 said:
It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.
Click to expand...

Is that a dershoshitz or Graham quote? Haha
 
#36,282
#36,282
lawgator1 said:
It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.
Click to expand...

the question isn't does impeachment require a crime; it is the repeated statements by Luther and others that Trump committed crimes and is being charged for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#36,284
#36,284
volinbham said:
the question isn't does impeachment require a crime; it is the repeated statements by Luther and others that Trump committed crimes and is being charged for them.
Click to expand...


If a technical crime is not required, the discussion of whether he did or not is moot. The only question is whether his conduct rises to the level of justifying his removal from office.
 
#36,288
#36,288
lawgator1 said:
If a technical crime is not required, the discussion of whether he did or not is moot. The only question is whether his conduct rises to the level of justifying his removal from office.
Click to expand...

of course it is - the conversation was with people making factual claims that he is being charged with crimes. they are incorrect no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#36,289
#36,289
Its laughable that dimocrats wanting a witness like Jon Bolton. Bolton is a staunch conservative who worked for Fox News for years before being hired by the President.

They are so blind with hate for this President they think that Bolton who hates dimocrats even more would say anything to hurt the President regardless of his disagreements with him.

A number of Fox News personalities over the last several weeks who IMO likely have spoken with Bolton has hinted at the same.
 
Last edited:
#36,291
#36,291
volinbham said:
kinda like Schiff talking on opening night how during the Clinton impeachment the witnesses had all been heard from before; no new witnesses for the case were heard in the Senate? good times
Click to expand...

There were three witnesses (via deposition) for the Senate trial of Clinton. Excerpts from those depositions were then played in the Senate. But thanks for playing.
 
#36,293
#36,293
37L1 said:
Balderdash.

Impeachment is a very serious and somber matter. The investigation/inquiry into it should be as meticulous and thorough as possible and should include the President's party in the process by allowing them to call their witnessess, obtain their documentation and any other matters that could exculpate the President. That way, what you send over from the House might actually have votes in the affirmative from the opposing party. Did that happen in this case? Was the investigation complete, meticulous and provided equal opportunity for the opposition? The answer to that should be abundantly clear, even to you.

They are intentionally trying to influence the election. They knew they had nothing left but the ability to put on a political carnival sideshow. They knew the Republican controlled Senate would not remove the President. They sent it over anyway, didn't want to take the time to do a complete investigation, go through the required steps to get documents/witnesses, all because it would happen after the election. What's so wrong about doing that?

They can't take the chance that Trump will win reelection so they are pulling out their nuclear option of a BS "Trumped" up impeachment. There was nothing noble about them wanting to not impact the election. That's what this is really all about. You are so full of. . .denial, that it isn't even funny.

You can't possibly be that dumb naive.
Click to expand...

At one time I would have agreed with you. Now I'm thinking "Oh, yes, he can."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#36,294
#36,294
CagleMtnVol said:
Its laughable that dimocrats wanting a witness like Jon Bolton. Bolton is a staunch conservative who worked Fox News for years before being hired by the President.

They are so blind with hate for this President they think that Bolton who hates dimocrats even more would say anything to hurt the President regardless of his disagreements with him.

A number of Fox News personalities over the last several weeks who IMOA likely have spoken with Bolton has hinted at the same.
Click to expand...
 
#36,296
#36,296
evillawyer said:
There were three witnesses (via deposition) for the Senate trial of Clinton. Excerpts from those depositions were then played in the Senate. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

reading comprehension is fundamental - they were witnesses that had already been heard from during the impeachment process and who's testimony was included from the House. No new fact witnesses to the impeachment articles were heard in the Senate. Schiff said so himself right in front of everyone.

so thanks for playing and pay attention going forward
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1, hog88 and 1 other person
#36,298
#36,298
CagleMtnVol said:
Its laughable that dimocrats wanting a witness like Jon Bolton. Bolton is a staunch conservative who worked Fox News for years before being hired by the President.

They are so blind with hate for this President they think that Bolton who hates dimocrats even more would say anything to hurt the President regardless of his disagreements with him.

A number of Fox News personalities over the last several weeks who IMOA likely have spoken with Bolton has hinted at the same.
Click to expand...


The $64k question is whether, when he takes the oath, he honors it and tells the truth, or just spins to protect.

My money is on both. I do think when push comes to shove he will say that Trump did it to hurt Biden, that he (Bolton) warned him against it, and that Trump did it anyway. If asked the right way, he might even admit that disagreement over that was one of the reasons he left.
 
#36,299
#36,299
lawgator1 said:
It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.

You don’t need a technical crime.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the guy who that describes was finally leaving office and we were voting for someone who wouldn't do that in November 2016.

That's why I voted for Trump instead of Hillary. She would have continued the destruction of the United States the way Obama started it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top