Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Why didn’t they subpoena him and go to court?
A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
Why didn’t they subpoena him and go to court?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
They needed to impeach Trump before he committed any more crimes so they couldn’t wait on the courts.
But then after impeaching him, they sat on the articles for a month lol.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Says who?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
What makes you think the Senate wouldn’t have been blocked?
What makes you think the Senate has greater powers to compel testimony than the House?
Fucking retard
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Happens all the time. Judges have the authority to allow testimony or not allow it
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
They can’t make up their minds
One minute impeachment isn’t a trial. Then it is
One minute their case is OVERWHELMING and Trump admitted guilt with his transcript. Then their case can’t stand on its own and ONLY Bolton can prove what they accuse Trump of
It is astounding to watch
Let’s be clear. When the Democrats lost the 2016 election, they claimed that the election was unfair, rigged... the Russians.
Never mind that Hillary was a horrible candidate, ran a horrible campaign, exposed state secrets on a private server, then destroyed evidence after a subpoena had been issued, and insulted half of the very Americans who vote.
A rigged election.
Now the Democrats come to the Senate with a flawed, weak, case with Articles that do not rise anywhere close to impeachable, poor, unprepared House managers, and insult the very Senators who are going to judge the case...”coverup.”
I think John Wayne covered it nicely. “Life is hard, it’s really hard if you are stupid.”
Never mind that Hillary was a horrible candidate, ran a horrible campaign, exposed state secrets on a private server, then destroyed evidence after a subpoena had been issued, and insulted half of the very Americans who vote.
A rigged election.
Now the Democrats come to the Senate with a flawed, weak, case with Articles that do not rise anywhere close to impeachable, poor, unprepared House managers, and insult the very Senators who are going to judge the case...”coverup.”
I think John Wayne covered it nicely. “Life is hard, it’s really hard if you are stupid.”
Darth Omar
Russian asset
It’s spin lol.
The ‘trial’ isn’t even a trial in a strict sense. Actually, if it was a real trial much of Democrats ‘evidence’ would be inadmissible. It’s questionable if the case would even be heard in a real trial. It would probably be dismissed.
To bring it up to ‘real trial’ standards Democrats would need more than what they have. But they didn’t want to wait on it...everyone knows the story.
At any rate, it’s not like John Bolton is under a gag order. Let him spill his beans—if he really has any. He could do it today, right now even.
I assume he knows how to use his device.
Indeed.
Flawed Articles, a flawed House manager team, result in a flawed case and a loss. The moral of this story, do not bring a “remove the president” case that is flawed. Or, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
I am really surprised at the amateurish nature of the Democrats and their case. Perhaps they are just...amateurs.
In the final analysis, they knew the outcome before they started this mess and now they will whine and sulk for the rest of this century.
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
What’s the saying lol?
If you go after the King make sure you kill him? Democrats didn’t even draw blood with this. Yes, Trump is impeached but Democrats now own the weakest and most partisan impeachment in history. An impeachment that fails to remove a president is a House censure vote—with lipstick on it.
It amounts to a vote of no confidence by the House. Who cares. It’s not like House *democrats* needed to formalize their ‘no confidence’ in Trump—everyone knew that already.
Liar
I think you are going to find a few Senator think he is guilty, but removable. Rubio and Alexander have said so, and I think in their final remarks a lot of Republic senators feel this way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/4624910002
[FONT="]Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."[/FONT]
Sore loser....loser.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Exoneration pens. Good one lol!
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I hope he passes some out at the State of the Union
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Another way of saying ‘it’s an offense, just not an impeachable one’.
Should we start impeaching presidents for offenses that don’t rate removal now? Doesn’t that trivialize the whole process? And waste a lot of time when Congress can be doing more constructive things besides dividing the country?