The Impeachment Thread

#40,951
#40,951
NorthDallas40 said:
You are 100% FOS! In your last reply you substituted your phrase of “he shouldn’t be punished” for “does not meet the high bar of impeachment”. Alexander has never said he shouldn’t be punished he clearly states what he did doesn’t meet the bar for the outcome that libs want but has not offered an opinion on alternative outcomes! You’re making that up plain and simple.

😘 <- just for you as they appear to be having the desired affect.
Click to expand...
It's called surmising... by not meeting the high bar of impeachment, Alexander is saying he doesn't think Trump should be punished with the only sanction available to the Senate - removal from office. I haven't rewritten any of Alexander's tweets. I have taken them verbatim and I have discussed them all.
 
#40,955
#40,955
BowlBrother85 said:
It's called surmising... by not meeting the high bar of impeachment, Alexander is saying he doesn't think Trump should be punished with the only sanction available to the Senate - removal from office. I haven't rewritten any of Alexander's tweets. I have taken them verbatim and I have discussed them all.
Click to expand...
No it’s called making **** up and inserting your own inference. Alexander has offered no opinion on censure or other punitive measures stop misrepresenting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, StarRaider, FLVOL69 and 1 other person
#40,958
#40,958
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm not. I'm just not addressing the whole 15 tweet statement with every post. I have said that the premise of Alexander's logic is sound. It basically is jury nullification, however. He believes that Trump is guilty as charged of Abuse of Power under Article I... Alexander just doesn't believe that Trump should be punished for it.
Click to expand...

If something isn’t an impeachable offense then there is no abuse of power. The only abuse of power has been the dims dragging this out for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1, FLVOL69 and 1 other person
#40,961
#40,961
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm not. I'm just not addressing the whole 15 tweet statement with every post. I have said that the premise of Alexander's logic is sound. It basically is jury nullification, however. He believes that Trump is guilty as charged of Abuse of Power under Article I... Alexander just doesn't believe that Trump should be punished for it.
Click to expand...
If the Senate is the jury, and the senate says the accusations don't rise to the level of a crime, how is that jury nullification?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and FLVOL69
#40,964
#40,964
BowlBrother85 said:
Wrong! I haven't "rewritten" a damn thing... and I have discussed Sen. Alexander's statement in it's totality. It is pointless to try and have a reasonable debate on here. Emotions come into play too much and other people's words are misrepresented. I've been thorough in fully interpreting what Alexander wrote.
Click to expand...
This is rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, AM64, FLVOL69 and 1 other person
#40,965
#40,965
BowlBrother85 said:
It's called surmising... by not meeting the high bar of impeachment, Alexander is saying he doesn't think Trump should be punished with the only sanction available to the Senate - removal from office. I haven't rewritten any of Alexander's tweets. I have taken them verbatim and I have discussed them all.
Click to expand...
The problem is that your discussion repaints them, adds to them, and then cops out of having done so by calling it "surmising".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, AM64 and 37L1
#40,966
#40,966
Orange_Crush said:
The problem is that your discussion repaints them, adds to them, and then cops out of having done so by calling it "surmising".
Click to expand...
Would anyone disagree with this brief and simple summary of the Alexander statement?

No more evidence is required because the accusation under Article I that Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine for the purpose of encouraging them to investigate a political opponent has already been proven. However, this did not justify an impeachment of the president, or his removal from office. Article II is completely baseless and should not have been brought forth.
 
#40,967
#40,967
BowlBrother85 said:
Would anyone disagree with this brief and simple summary of the Alexander statement?

No more evidence is required because the accusation under Article I that Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine for the purpose of encouraging them to investigate a political opponent has already been proven. However, this did not justify an impeachment of the president, or his removal from office. Article II is completely baseless and should not have been brought forth.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the fact that you added your imagination to the above, claimed you didn't, and then got all pissy when people pointed out that you added your imagination to it while claiming you hadn't?

Oh... And edit to add, the "pissy" part was:

Emotions come into play too much and other people's words are misrepresented.
Click to expand...

Emotionally bemoaned as you misrepresented someone's words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, AM64, 37L1 and 1 other person
#40,968
#40,968
Tennesseefan2019 said:
RINO Never Trumper Joe Scarborough is very bitter with President Trump's coming acquittal :D:rolleyes:

Sour-Grapes Scarborough 'Fine' with Acquittal: 'Will Just Make Republicans Look Worse'
Click to expand...

This is where voting for no more witness or for acquittal largely along political lines is a setup for winning the battle and losing the war. This action by the dems was never about right or wrong - we all know that - some just won't admit it; it's always been about discredit and the 2020 elections. The dims struck first with their partisanship - then right or wrong the GOP is last ... except in this case the last score may not be the one that wins the game. We'll have to see what happens next because voters have notoriously short memories, media beats the drums for favored agendas unceasingly, so it's who plays the best "what have you done for me lately" for the win and voting for no witness or for acquittal may not be the better strategy.
 
#40,969
#40,969
BowlBrother85 said:
Would anyone disagree with this brief and simple summary of the Alexander statement?

No more evidence is required because the accusation under Article I that Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine for the purpose of encouraging them to investigate a political opponent has already been proven. However, this did not justify an impeachment of the president, or his removal from office. Article II is completely baseless and should not have been brought forth.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t proven, tgey got the ****ing money and no investigation of Creepy Joe or Burisma was initiated. There was no mention of aid on either phone call as well. Wtf don’t you guys get ? Thoughts, intentions, desires are not an impeachable offense!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#40,970
#40,970
Orange_Crush said:
If the Senate is the jury, and the senate says the accusations don't rise to the level of a crime, how is that jury nullification?
Click to expand...
About 47% say it rises to the level of removal.

Plus, even Alexander said clearly that Trump was guilty as charged.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top