A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

The socialists have been trying to overturn the 2016 election results for years now, and CHUCK U. schumer has already declared the 2020 election invalid. Putin thanks you.

:dunno:

You are not making any sense now, Dog.

When you get back to making sense, we'll talk.
 
Here’s your problem: the senate basically decided that even if Democrats could prove the allegations against Trump ... the allegation doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense.

That's not my problem, Darth. It's the GOP's problem when Bolton's book comes out.

"You can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Hey, Lincoln was a Republican! Not many people know that. Did you know that?
 
You are not making any sense now, Dog.

When you get back to making sense, we'll talk.

Democrats still refuse to accept the 2016 election votes, ... despite Obobo saying the Russians did not change the election results. :dunno:

And " “The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,” Schiff said, “for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._chance_of_voters_deciding_2020_election.html

And the Dems refuse to accept the Senate vote to not call anymore witnesses.
 
Bolton knows how to sell his book, doesn’t he lol.

You going to buy a copy?

Come election time, Bolton's book will become the liberal "Bible" if it contains what they are hoping it will. If it does, hopefully, it will also include some classified information worthy of indictment.
 
Come election time, Bolton's book will become the liberal "Bible" if it contains what they are hoping it will. If it does, hopefully, it will also include some classified information worthy of indictment.

It’s a ruse.

Bolton is seeing dollar signs. Think about it: if what Bolton knows is going to ‘save the republic’ lol, doesn’t he have a responsibility to come out with it—today? What’s stopping him? Absolutely nothing.

Except, it would probably cost him millions in book sales. I bet every JPP lefty buys a copy of it.

Even if Bolton says what the lefties hope he will say, it doesn’t change anything: the Senate concluded the allegations didn’t warrant new witnesses *even if they are true*. IOW, they don’t need to hear Bolton affirm it, assuming he even does.

The Senate preserved the integrity of the impeachment process by adhering to historical precedent. Bill Clinton wasn’t convicted by the Senate because the Senate held that Clinton’s offense didn’t warrant removal from office. In contrast, under Pelosi, the House went *against* historical norms by sending a strictly partisan set of articles to the Senate in a hurried up fashion—then took the unprecedented step of sitting on them for a month AFTER lecturing the country about how Trump needed removed before ‘he cheated’ again.

House Democrats richly deserved to lose on this.
 
Democrats still refuse to accept the 2016 election votes, ... despite Obobo saying the Russians did not change the election results. :dunno:

I am not a Democrat, but every Democrat that I personally know DOES accept the 2016 election vote. Trump got approximately 3,000,000 less votes than Hillary Clinton...but got more electoral votes...SO HE WON.

Jesus H. Christ, Dog...HE FUCKING WON! He won...he lives in the White House...he signs congress passed bills into law. We all "accept" it.

Every time he was mentioned during the impeachment trial by a Democrat...HE WAS CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

So what are you babbling about on that issue?

And " “The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,” Schiff said, “for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

I feel the same way Adam Schiff feels...BUT SO WHAT?

There is going to be an election in November this year...and it does not mean shit what we think. The result of that election will determine who will serve as president for the next four years. If Trump loses the popular vote by 10,000,000...but wins the electoral vote by 1...HE WILL BE THE PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

So what is your point?

And the Dems refuse to accept the Senate vote to not call anymore witnesses.

The Democrats...and the editorial boards of most newspapers across America...and a very healthy majority of American citizens ARE VERY, VERY, VERY disappointed that the Senate did not ask for more witnesses and documents.

But what the fuck does it mean "refuse to accept" it?

We "accept" it...because there is not a goddam thing we can do about it. But we do not like it.

Now...start speaking some sense...so we can actually have a conversation.
 
I am not a Democrat,

Oh pleez, Frank :palm: The Dem narrative is that the trial is a sham... because the vote didn't go their way.

"www.nytimes.com › opinion › presidential-inauguration-2017 › not-...
Not My President, Not Now, Not Ever - NYTimes.com
Jan 20, 2017 - I've felt a guilty alienation from the chorus of “not my president” that's been building among the left since the supposed free election of Donald J."
 
Oh pleez, Frank :palm: The Dem narrative is that the trial is a sham... because the vote didn't go their way.

"www.nytimes.com › opinion › presidential-inauguration-2017 › not-...
Not My President, Not Now, Not Ever - NYTimes.com
Jan 20, 2017 - I've felt a guilty alienation from the chorus of “not my president” that's been building among the left since the supposed free election of Donald J."

What in hell does this reply have to do with what you quoted me saying?
 
I do not do party politics under any circumstances, but I like the sound of what you are saying.

I will vote for whomever the Democrats choose to oppose the oaf in the Oval Office.

that's exactly what gave us Trump in 2016 when you ran Hilliary.......I remember when you folks said that was wrong.......
 
Berlin%2Bin%2B1945%2B4.jpg

picture of the Demmycrats on Thursday......finally defeated.......
 
The socialists have been trying to overturn the 2016 election results for years now, and CHUCK U. schumer has already declared the 2020 election invalid. Putin thanks you.

:dunno:
What part of “The socialists have been trying to overturn the 2016 election results for years now, and CHUCK U. schumer has already declared the 2020 election invalid. Putin thanks you,” is confusing?

A simple declarative sentence that I agree with.
 
Last edited:
He was, but trump blocked his testimony.

Best evidence requires a witness to testify in the trial where he can be cross examined. If trump were innocent, that is what he would want.

if the House demmycrats were innocent we wouldn't have had to waste time on this whole process........
 
Let's take something we can all admit is unconstitutional.

and yet, the constitution says nothing at all about the requirements of an impeachment trial except that its up to the senate......I guess we ought to all admit it is NOT unconstitutional........
 
The media is openly attempting to influece an election...again.

“Washington (CNN)CNN and The Des Moines Register will not release their final Iowa caucus poll, the network announced Saturday...”
 
As I said, Frank, socialists don't believe in democracy (unless they win).

:dunno:

You are making no sense. We will try this again tomorrow. Maybe your buzz will be gone.

One last thought. To "accept" that Trump won...DOES NOT REQUIRE BENDING THE KNEE to him as you do. It does not mean kissing his ass, the way McConnell and the Senate Republicans do.

That may be your mistake. You simply are unable to recognize "acceptance." You think it means servility...and apparently have no problem engaging in it.

In any case, Trump, like Tattaglia, is a pimp. He won the last presidential election and IS the president. But he is, and will always be...a pimp.
 
Back
Top