Will Trump be impeached?

[GT Pony]

If Trump has the right to defend himself in a Senate trial why won't Pelosi transmit her articles of impeachment? if she simply did her job, the senate trial could commense but she won't for some reason that only she knows. We should just adopt the same rules the House used for the "impeachment inquiry". Fair is fair, I'm not saying we shouldn't be fair but we should be careful not to condemn someone before the proof is there especially when his accusers are so partisan and unfair. Even Obama who is a complete narcissistic ass shouldn't have been treated this way.

The better question is, why didn't Trump try to defend himself in the House hearings. He and anyone in his administration was given the opportunity to come, but they all refused and stonewalled the process. (ie, obstruction of justice when called to the hearings).

She has given the reasons why. Remember, this is a chess game and both sides will use the rules they best way they can.

LOL ... you think Obama was a bigger narcissistic ass than Trump? I didn't see Obama badmouthing everyone on Twitter, including a 16 year old girl. You got the TZ virus bad, just as bad as ol' bj.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

We are both quoting summaries about the constitution that plainly says " bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
I am quoting from the House website who has been laid with the burden of being the "sole power of impeachment".

Who is right, who is wrong, didn't read anything anywhere that he could be impeached for being a meanie head.

Now you're on "meanie head" ... nice strawman argument. I guess you didn't see this part.

Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

He has basically done all three listed.

And actually (2) could include being a "meanie head" by constantly verbally abusing people's character. Is the funtion and purpose of the office of POTUS to be a slander of everyone he doesn't like.

 

[Docscurlock]

Now you're just making shit up. Go quote me where I said that. I think you have some kind of reading comprehension problem.

Again, your exact copied and pasted words. "There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear."

This implies that you know he is guilty apparently because you 1. Know what these people are going to say before they have said it or 2. You have information from another top secret deposition that these people would for sure implicate Trump in the crime or whatever he has been charged with.
I think I'm a rather smart dude, I did spend a lot of time in school putting that Doc in front of my Scurlock. So since we have beaten these horses to death, let's look at it differently. He has been impeached (or not, depends on which liberal constitutional scholar you believe), his charges are abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
1. Abuse of power, who should we bring forward to testify that he has indeed abused his power and who measures said power and where are it's specific outlines at?
2. Obstruction of Congress, how did he obstruct Congress, did he obstruct all of Congress or just the parts that have been trying to impeach him for 3 years and if it is said that by not having previously mentioned people who for sure are going to implicate him testify is he in obstruction or within his rights?

 

[Docscurlock]

The better question is, why didn't Trump try to defend himself in the House hearings. He and anyone in his administration was given the opportunity to come, but they all refused and stonewalled the process. (ie, obstruction of justice).

If you are accused of murder do you have to prove you didn't murder someone or do they have to prove you did it? If you are unable to have your counsel there to help you, is that a fair trial? If you can't call any witnesses that can help you prove you didn't do the murder, is that a fair trial?

She has given the reasons why. Remember, this is a chess game and both sides will use the rules they best way they can.

​

I don't remember her asking Mitch about his thoughts on how the impeachment inquiry should go. Apparently rules are rules if the dems like them but are unconstitutional when they don't. She is not a member of the Senate and it is above her pay grade to worry about what they do.​

[QUOTE="GT Pony, post: 2750355, member: 14534"
LOL ... you think Obama was a bigger narcissistic ass than Trump? I didn't see Obama badmouthing everyone on Twitter, including a 16 year old girl. You got the TZ virus bad, just as bad as ol' bj.[/QUOTE]

Like i said before, I don't want to sleep with him. I just want someone running this country that will do a good job and if I got to read about twitter fueds, I don't care. That 16 yo girl is a rich self important snot and proven liar. This is not about personalities, this is about right and wrong, rule of law and destroying our country

 

[Docscurlock]

He has basically done all three listed.

And actually (2) could include being a "meanie head" by constantly verbally abusing people's character. Is the funtion and purpose of the office of POTUS to be a slander of everyone he doesn't like.

Only in your not so humble opinion, judge.

 

[GT Pony]

Again, your exact copied and pasted words. "There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear."

Wow .. really, you think that statement I made is what you claim, which is (your exact words): "What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?"

What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?

Now I know you're incapable of having these discussions and making shit up. You are a typical Trump Zombie who only reads and then filters shit to how he wants to hear it. I have NEVER once said he's guilty at this point.

This implies that you know...

I think I'm a rather smart dude,

No you are not a "smart dude" (you sound like Trump when he says stupid shit like that) ... you're a lying piece of shit and don't even understand Constitutional law when it's right in front of your face.

 

[GT Pony]

Nope, once again you are mistaken. I posted that to show that there are counterpoints to the debate - obviously, if two experts can't agree then is it any wonder nobody here can. I even said it was a counter point to Feldman's view.

Again, the "no crimes" defense ... keep on thinking that zombie. Just shows you're brainwashed.

 

[Docscurlock]

Wow .. really, you think that statement I made is what you claim, which is (your exact words): "What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?"

Now I know you're incapable of having these discussions and making shit up. You are a typical Trump Zombie who only reads and then filters shit to how he wants to hear it. I have NEVER once said he's guilty at this point.

"There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear."
Your words, not mine.

No you are not a "smart dude" (you sound like Trump when he says stupid shit like that) ... you're a lying piece of shit and don't even understand Constitutional law when it's right in front of your face.

I really wish I would have come up with that whole stable genius thing, I really like that. I think I will ask him if I can use that one next time we are having beers. I like to think of myself as a stable genius, I put the part stable in there because I don't melt down when someone doesn't agree with me. The constitution simply reads, "on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

That means to me there has to be a law broken, simple really. You can look at it anyway you want. You can listen to liberal constitutional scholar 1 who says Trump is not impeached and the impeachment articles are null and void because the house left without fulfilling their constitutional duty to transmit those articles to the senate for trial oc=r scholar #2 who says, whatever Queen Nancy wants is right. I can see why you ar =e getting upset, you are trying to defend the indefensible. If they want to impeach them it is their right to do so, then transmit the articles to the senate for a trial. Otherwise go the hell home.

 

[GT Pony]

"There's plenty of evidence that he had a scheme going, and if the Senate would allow others to testify (of course they won't because they know the potential damage), the case would most likely be even more clear."
Your words, not mine.

OK lying piece of shit ... that's all you are now. Yeah, my words that you then respond with: "What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?"

You make things up and lie. You have ZERO credibility anymore. Just goes to show who you really are. No surprise really.

 

[Docscurlock]

Nope, once again you are mistaken. I posted that to show that there are counterpoints to the debate - obviously, if two experts can't agree then is it any wonder nobody here can. I even said it was a counter point to Feldman's view.

Again, the "no crimes" defense ... keep on thinking that zombie. Just shows you're brainwashed.

We can go on all night, "The no crimes defense"
The no proof of crimes defense" The unfair trial defense" The unhinged lunatic hatred of Trump defense" The "house doesn't get to change the constitution to fit their needs defense" "The complete and utter horseshit defense" "The Adam Schiff show defense" It never ends, most of the country has seen through the dems and their "trial illusion show" and are sick to death of it. A lot of Americans don't like trump but a lot more Americans see a pure railroading out of hatred and they don't like it.

 

[GT Pony]

We can go on all night, "The no crimes defense"
The no proof of crimes defense" The unfair trial defense" The unhinged lunatic hatred of Trump defense" The "house doesn't get to change the constitution to fit their needs defense" "The complete and utter horseshit defense" "The Adam Schiff show defense" It never ends, most of the country has seen through the dems and their "trial illusion show" and are sick to death of it. A lot of Americans don't like trump but a lot more Americans see a pure railroading out of hatred and they don't like it.

OK dishonest lair.

 

[Docscurlock]

OK lying piece of shit ... that's all you are now. Yeah, my words that you then respond with: "What abut your statement that says Trump is guilty before the evidence is discovered?"

You make things up and lie. You have ZERO credibility anymore. Just goes to show who you really are. No surprise really.

Are those not your words saying that if just those people testified it would be more clear, it is already understood that you think Trump is guilty. If you don't think he is guilty I would like to know that, it will show I am arguing with the wrong person.

 

[watisthis]

"You sure are a mouthy hypocritical little fuck" LMAO! This dude got upset at me when I kept posting cited facts disproving his opinions. RIP

 

[Docscurlock]

OK dishonest lair.

I apologize if I am upsetting you, I am trying to prove a point here about this crap the house is calling impeachment.

 

[Docscurlock]

"You sure are a mouthy hypocritical little fuck" LMAO! This dude got upset at me when I kept posting cited facts disproving his opinions. RIP

You posted no facts just assumptions that Bernie has good moral character and would make a good president.

Sponsored