SCOTUS already unanimously rejected the left's dishonest, invalid impeachment case

[artichoke]

Liberals LOVE looking stupid !

Either that or they just have a natural gift for it. It seems to be where they spend most of their time.

[artichoke]

This from a guy that LIVES under a dictatorship by oligarchy, and doesn't even know it!

Couldn't pay me to live in a fascist control-freak nanny state society like Britain, where people are thrown in jail for Facebook posts.

Attachment 13128

[artichoke]

What's most interesting is how the other three thoroughly dismantled his bullshit and how he contradicted his own testimony.

Attachment 13129

You must have been watching a different hearing. The one I watched had one sane person citing provable facts about the law and three overtly biased partisan hacks who donated to Democrats, who were hand-picked to for their total lack of integrity and willingness to utterly butcher the law, and who were caught repeatedly lying.

[CharacterAssassin]

Attachment 13129

You must have been watching a different hearing. The one I watched had one sane person citing provable facts about the law and three overtly biased partisan hacks who donated to Democrats, who were hand-picked to for their total lack of integrity and willingness to utterly butcher the law, and who were caught repeatedly lying.

Oh, honey, you're cwying again.

Fun that you can't cite where he cited 'provable facts about the law' and you sure as hell can't cite where any of the three 'butchered the law'.

Please be less of a sniveling pussy, and thanks for another easy win.

[Earl]

If this is not impeachable, what is? Clinton's sex life hardly compares, and you made enough fuss about that, as I recollect. I doubt if your present poor old bugger is up to sex with piglets, but might that do it, do you think?

The sexual predator, old Bill, was impeached for perjury, America hating a Marxist. Iolo sock and disbarred.

[Earl]

Winning will be accomplished when President Trump is exonerated in the Senate.

Innocent and he remains in office for five (5) more years.

Yes, winning and the radical Democrat Socialists lose...again.

[Nordberg]

Over 500 Constitutional scholars say Trump committed impeachable acts. They are among the best and brightest. At the hearings, there were 3 who said Trump did impeachable acts. Yet rightys trot out the outlier and claim he is the oracle of impeachment. That is silly. You can always find an ambulance chaser and claim he represents the entire law profession. Even this expert equivocated.
Trump only breaks the law and corrupts the Constitution over and over. He did expose a problem though. The founders did not designate punishment for much of what Trump does. They did not anticipate America voting in a scofflaw who would ignore the message they were sending. The other presidents honored the emoluments clause. Trump uses it for toilet paper as he flushes 10 or 15 times.

[Cinnabar]

Over 500 Constitutional scholars say Trump committed impeachable acts. They are among the best and brightest. At the hearings, there were 3 who said Trump did impeachable acts. Yet rightys trot out the outlier and claim he is the oracle of impeachment. That is silly. You can always find an ambulance chaser and claim he represents the entire law profession. Even this expert equivocated.
Trump only breaks the law and corrupts the Constitution over and over. He did expose a problem though. The founders did not designate punishment for much of what Trump does. They did not anticipate America voting in a scofflaw who would ignore the message they were sending. The other presidents honored the emoluments clause. Trump uses it for toilet paper as he flushes 10 or 15 times.

That is probably why the orange malignancy is so concerned with toilet flushing these days...

Trump Loses It And Launches Investigation Into Toilet Flushing
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12...-flushing.html

[Into the Night]

Over 500 Constitutional scholars say Trump committed impeachable acts.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers now.

They are among the best and brightest.

Who are 'they'? Void argument fallacy, extending from the original argument from randU fallacy.

At the hearings, there were 3 who said Trump did impeachable acts.

They do not get to declare what is an impeachable act.

You can always find an ambulance chaser and claim he represents the entire law profession.

Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

Even this expert equivocated.

Define 'expert'. Buzzword fallacy.

Trump only breaks the law and corrupts the Constitution over and over.

What law? What point in the Constitution? Void argument fallacy.

He did expose a problem though.

That he did. The problem of the Deep State and the corruption in the Press.

The founders did not designate punishment for much of what Trump does.

Why would they?

They did not anticipate America voting in a scofflaw who would ignore the message they were sending.

You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.

The other presidents honored the emoluments clause.

You mean like Jackson, who personally benefited from stealing lands from the indians and selling it?
You mean like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who personally benefited from selling rooms at the White House in return for money?

Trump uses it for toilet paper as he flushes 10 or 15 times.

What crime?

[artichoke]

Over 500 Constitutional scholars say Trump committed impeachable acts.

This is a combination of an ad populum fallacy (this many people agree with me, therefore I must be right and don't have to prove my argument) and an ad vericundium fallacy (this important person or expert agrees with me, therefore I must be right and don't have to prove my argument)...and probably a lie as well.

[Nordberg]

Attachment 13129

You must have been watching a different hearing. The one I watched had one sane person citing provable facts about the law and three overtly biased partisan hacks who donated to Democrats, who were hand-picked to for their total lack of integrity and willingness to utterly butcher the law, and who were caught repeatedly lying.

You can do that? Three highly respected constitutional scholars and you wave them away and hang on to a guy who once testified the opposite way? Of course, you can.

[artichoke]

Fun that you can't cite where he cited 'provable facts about the law' and you sure as hell can't cite where any of the three 'butchered the law'.

Unless you count all the times I already did, like in the OP, dumb-ass.

Oh, honey, you're cwying again...Please be less of a sniveling pussy, and thanks for another easy win.

Again, what are you twelve?

[artichoke]

You can do that? Three highly respected constitutional scholars...

NO ONE "respects" these partisan hacks or sees them as "scholars" after their hilariously biased and incompetent "legal analysis" (utter butchery of the law).

[jimmymccready]

No, SCOTUS has not rejected the Democrat's definition of bribery.

[artichoke]

No, SCOTUS has not rejected the Democrat's definition of bribery.

Pretending away the evidence provided will get you nowhere.

Attachment 13159