The Impeachment Thread

#41,001
#41,001
luthervol said:
It's just that one of those two opinions is almost universally held and the other is held by 53%.
Makes a tad bit of difference.
Sort of like it is almost a universally held opinion that the Earth is not flat while it's the opinion of 53% that pepperoni is better than sausage as a pizza topping.
Click to expand...
Nah not really. Opinions and azzholes and all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 82_VOL_83 and FLVOL69
#41,002
#41,002
Orange_Crush said:
There are a LOT of opinions in the senate that are more consequential than all of ours. When the vast majority of Senate opinions announce him innocent of both charges, will you still fall back on that argument?
Click to expand...
In this case, a case of jury nullification.... innocent doesn't mean "didn't do it". So, yes, this can and will be used against Trump where it matters - in the general election. And there will not be a vast majority of Senators to vote for acquittal. It will probably be 53-47.

Going to dinner at PF Chang's ... been fun. Trump sucks. Glad to see we all agree.
 
Last edited:
#41,004
#41,004
Orange_Crush said:
There are a LOT of opinions in the senate that are more consequential than all of ours. When the vast majority of Senate opinions announce him innocent of both charges, will you still fall back on that argument?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting “vast from?” And I bet that those who think he’s guilty is above 90. There is just a majority, of that 90, who don’t think it’s enough to remove a sitting President.
 
#41,014
#41,014
BowlBrother85 said:
I said that I could live with Lamar Alexander's stance, which is to acknowledge that Trump's actions were wrong, but did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense or justify his removal from office. The problem up until now, is that no Republican in Congress has held that stance. Republicans have been giving Trump the defense that he wants, which is that his actions were completely appropriate and the July 25th phone call was "perfect". Alexander's statement yesterday was the first departure from that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That starts precedent for congress ruling on everything a president does or says. It also prohibits the president from moving to sort out corruption of anyone who "opposes" him in any way - if nothing more than by being a member of another party. You do this because of a president who isn't afraid to make enemies hurts your feelings, and you wind up limiting the power of all presidents in the future. We all have a say on who becomes president; we individually have a say in only a very very small fraction of congress. It's congressional not presidential wings that need to be clipped because if we are determined we can do something about a president, but there's virtually no chance we'll ever do anything about a very corrupt congress.

Furthermore, you and your buddies have been far too willing to put words in the mouths of those who are calling for an end to the charade. Saying that nothing further is warranted because nothing stated would rise above the bar for impeachment does not mean they are buying the left's guilt. You guys "got nothin'" and they are calling you out. If you are too dumb to realize that, too bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and 37L1
#41,020
#41,020
hog88 said:
It's not even comparable. Impeachment and removal is a political process not a judicial one.
Click to expand...
Correct! Or yeah I agree with you anyway.

This whole jury nullification tripe narrative is just their latest talking point. What Alexander said should just be taken at face value. In Alexander’s opinion Trump was wrong in the substance of the discussions with the Ukrainians. However nothing in the exchange meets the bar for impeachment and subsequent removal. That’s it. Move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#41,024
#41,024
NorthDallas40 said:
Do you believe the bolded is equivalent to jury nullification?
Click to expand...
No because it’s a fallacy to call them a jury in the way we use jury for a normal criminal trials. They typically require 100% agreement. So if this were a criminal trial all Trump needs is one juror saying not guilty. That’s why that analogy is dumb
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top