Impeachment article to be delivered Monday, Trump will be tried, Schumer says

[RAMOSS]

This impeachment isn't justice. It's a sham, just like Biden's plea for unity.

Considering the charges, the evidence for those charges, what you are saying , frankly is highly partisan. It's exceeding sedition. There might be something known as 'unity', but there is also something known as 'holding people responsible for their crimes', and 'justice' Any real government has to have accountability, but I don't think the republicans want accountability for their actions.

 

[Hatuey]

No, I'm comparing Chuck Schumer's Soviet-style impeachment process to the rubber stamp Supreme Soviet.

Even when you explain it, it doesn't make it less stupid. I'd find you more honest if you just complained about jews attacking Trump.

 

[Wayne Jr]

.

Wake me up when a verdict is reached.

 

[Ahlevah]

Considering the charges, the evidence for those charges, what you are saying , frankly is highly partisan. It's exceeding sedition. There might be something known as 'unity', but there is also something known as 'holding people responsible for their crimes', and 'justice' Any real government has to have accountability, but I don't think the republicans want accountability for their actions.

I can be partisan. That's my right as a citizen. On the other hand, there's a legal process for an impeachment trial. The first one was a sham, too, but at least it was given a fig leaf of due process because the House held organized hearings to gather testimony/evidence. This thing is a complete joke, like something Putin would have concocted.

 

[Puigb]

I can be partisan. That's my right as a citizen. On the other hand, there's a legal process for an impeachment trial. The first one was a sham, too, but at least it was given a fig leaf of due process because the House held organized hearings to gather testimony/evidence. This thing is a complete joke, like something Putin would have concocted.

I remember the days when you were going around saying Trump would win in a "landslide". Nothing you ever say again has any merit.

 

[Ahlevah]

I remember the days when you were going around saying Trump would win in a "landslide". Nothing you ever say again has any merit.

I thought he would win. I don't recall saying he would win in a landslide, but then I also didn't expect the Democrats to so blatantly engineer changes to their election rules by fiat such that election day became election week and ballots didn't have to have validated signatures or even be properly signed.

 

[Puigb]

I thought he would win. I don't recall saying he would win in a landslide, but then I also didn't expect the Democrats to so blatantly engineer changes to their election rules by fiat such that election day became election week and ballots didn't have to have validated signatures or even be properly signed.

I'm going to quote you on what you just stated earlier: "This thing is a complete joke, like something Putin would have concocted."

Proper response to your post. I'll tell you what, look in the mirror and then you'll figure out why you lost, and will continue to lose.

 

[Ahlevah]

I'm going to quote you on what you just stated earlier: "This thing is a complete joke, like something Putin would have concocted."

Proper response to your post. I'll tell you what, look in the mirror and then you'll figure out why you lost, and will continue to lose.

Sleepy supposedly got 81 million votes, sixteen million more than Hillary, while the Democrats lost 11 House seats. Tell me, how did that happen? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: We just had a census. Republicans control thirty state legislatures, and I don't expect they'll be too nice when it comes to redistricting. So quote me or not, but Democrats are going to get their collective heads handed to them in 2022.

 

[Puigb]

Sleepy supposedly got 81 million votes, sixteen million more than Hillary, while the Democrats lost 11 House seats. Tell me, how did that happen?

Easily, actually. The house seats that were won were longtime Republican seats that they lost in 2018 in the blue wave, with no Trump on the ballot. See, your party suffers from a problem now. With Trump on the ballot, they are significantly more successful riding his coattails, as he (to his credit) is able to get low propensity voters to come out and vote...when he's on the ballot.

I'll tell you something though, it's amusing how you people have to always resort to claims of "fraud", when in reality the fraud is almost always done by your side. In Trump's case, whenever he doesn't like a result, he screams fraud. He did it in 2012 when Obama beat Romney. He did it again when Ted Cruz beat him in Iowa, and he did it when he lost the popular vote to Clinton. That's how your boy and his worthless political party roll. No ideas, ability to govern, can't convince people to vote for you, so you resort to technicalities to even stay relevant on a national level.

I don't know, but I'll tell you this: We just had a census. Republicans control thirty state legislatures, and I don't expect they'll be too nice when it comes to redistricting. So quote me or not, but Democrats are going to get their collective heads handed to them in 2022.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure about that champ. Although what you stated highlights what I said above. Only way you can win is by technicalities, because you damn well know you can't convince people to vote for you. Though the Trump presidency has awoken a sleeping giant among the Dems that made them realize the massive importance among elections that aren't presidential elections, and with the worst senate map you've had in years, I'd be wary of tap dancing too soon...especially since you were massively wrong about this past election.

 

[Puigb]

Sleepy supposedly got 81 million votes, sixteen million more than Hillary, while the Democrats lost 11 House seats. Tell me, how did that happen? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: We just had a census. Republicans control thirty state legislatures, and I don't expect they'll be too nice when it comes to redistricting. So quote me or not, but Democrats are going to get their collective heads handed to them in 2022.

Also, nothing in my above post factored in Trump not being out the picture. Trump and his inner circle of goons and his idiot kids aren't happy with many of your GOP leaders. All it takes is Trump riling up the base against Republicans, and suddenly turn out for them isn't looking too good. Just ask David Perdue and that idiot broad who lost Georgia.

 

[snakestretcher]

You Marxists love your Show Trials dont you

You wouldn't recognise a Marxist if he came up and introduced himself. It's just your typical knee-jerk accusation against anything you happen to disagree with. Your knowledge of what constitutes socialism is woefully lacking.

 

[RAMOSS]

I can be partisan. That's my right as a citizen. On the other hand, there's a legal process for an impeachment trial. The first one was a sham, too, but at least it was given a fig leaf of due process because the House held organized hearings to gather testimony/evidence. This thing is a complete joke, like something Putin would have concocted.

Of course you can. It's your right. There are many rights people have. One right is to be ill informed.

 

[ouch]

Is it possible to impeach a president after he's returned to private life?

If a career robber robs a gas station and a week later declares that he's never robbing again, does our laws allow him to walk free?

Trump deserves to be tried. Now, I might be fine if there would be a time limit set to impeach a former president. Just for kicks, lets say 26 months.

 

[eohrnberger]

If a career robber robs a gas station and a week later declares that he's never robbing again, does our laws allow him to walk free?

This is a flawed and inaccurate analogy.

Trump deserves to be tried. Now, I might be fine if there would be a time limit set to impeach a former president. Just for kicks, lets say 26 months.

Then a US attorney would have to make the case that Trump's political speeches, filled with the typical political rhetoric and political hyperbole, meets the legal definition of incitement.

 

[ouch]

This is a flawed and inaccurate analogy.

Spoken like a true Trumper. By that, I really mean Trump often claims to be a victim while committing the unethical or illegal act.

Then a US attorney would have to make the case that Trump's political speeches, filled with the typical political rhetoric and political hyperbole, meets the legal definition of incitement.

The Senate trial gets first shot at him.

 

[Anthony60]

It is almost like you do not understand how what you say, does not in any way stop anyone from believing you are a supporter of a seditionist president.

I can't stop other people's foolishness, not up to me. If Nancy tells you the Moon is made of green cheese, then that's it. Because you want the Moon to be made of green cheese, so no proof at all is needed. Tunnel vision.

 

[Anthony60]

It's on tape clown. You been asleep for a few months I see.

Oh, good. Then you can be the first one that's been accusing Trump to provide proof of it. I can't wait. The name calling really enhances your point, gives you such credibility.

 

[Anthony60]

I truly doubt the prosecution's case in this impeachment will devolve into "decoder rings and booklets": the president had been openly firing his crowd up for weeks (years really) and encouraged them to act, then they acted like extremists. That's the charge here, not some "secret messaging", but the public encouragement he gave to these loonies.

We don't know, because the House provided no evidence whatsoever against President Trump.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Wake me up when a verdict is reached.

I am still interested in seeing this challenged on Constitutional grounds, for the most part we have not seen something like this.

 

[ouch]

I can't stop other people's foolishness, not up to me. If Nancy tells you the Moon is made of green cheese, then that's it. Because you want the Moon to be made of green cheese, so no proof at all is needed. Tunnel vision.

This is an accurate description of Trump supporters at his rallies.

 

[dcsports]

It's important for the Senate to not rush this. To that end, they should take about as much time for this decision as they did to evaluate Barrett's suitability to lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That seems fair.

What was that, a week or so?

Funny you should bring that up. It was a month from nomination to confirmation.

 

[ouch]

We don't know, because the House provided no evidence whatsoever against President Trump.

Besides millions of people who watched it all unfold, here's evidence by Nadler based on VP Pence's words then presented as part of evidence.





House Judiciary Committee Report for Second Trump Impeachment | Law & Crime (lawandcrime.com)

Now, the stakes are higher. More of Trump’s loyalists have begun ending their support for the president in the wake of his alleged incitement of an insurrection on Jan. 6, which was underlined by the fact that Nadler chose to end his second report by appealing to the words of Vice President Michael Pence.

“In the words of Vice President Pence, the ‘Presidency belongs to the American people, and to them alone,'” the 50-page impeachment report declares, citing an additional 21 pages of footnotes.

The concluding passage of the report says that Trump is “unfit to remain in office a single day longer”:

President Trump has falsely asserted he won the 2020 presidential election and repeatedly sought to overturn the results of the election. As his efforts failed again and again, President Trump continued a parallel course of conduct that foreseeably resulted in the imminent lawless actions of his supporters, who attacked the Capitol and the Congress. This course of conduct, viewed within the context of his past actions and other attempts to subvert the presidential election, demonstrate that President Trump remains a clear and present danger to the Constitution and our democracy. The House must reject this outrageous attempt to overturn the election and this incitement of violence by a sitting president against his own government. President Trump committed a high Crime and Misdemeanor against the Nation by inciting an insurrection at the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. The facts establish that he is unfit to remain in office a single day longer, and warrant the immediate impeachment of President Trump.

 

[eohrnberger]

Spoken like a true Trumper. By that, I really mean Trump often claims to be a victim while committing the unethical or illegal act.

If a career robber robs a gas station and a week later declares that he's never robbing again, does our laws allow him to walk free?

You are likening political speech filled with the usual political rhetoric and political hyperbole to a crime. That is flawed.

Are you prepared to hold Bernie accountable for his political speech, political rhetoric and political hyperbole of 'GOP wants people to die' (WRT health care), which spurred on the Republican congressional baseball shooting incident? Charge Bernie with incitement?

The Senate trial gets first shot at him.

Yes, it would appear that this is how it is going to unfold.

 

[uptower]

We don't know, because the House provided no evidence whatsoever against President Trump.

If you're saying his guilt has not been established you are correct: that's what the impeachment trial is for. It is not incumbent on us to bring PWOOF!TM right here and now on the internet. That's the job of the prosecution.

If you're claiming there's not even enough evidence to bring charges that's horseshit - we all watched in real time while Trump played ringmaster to this circus.

 

[Hatuey]

I can't stop other people's foolishness,

You mean you wont stop seditionists when you agree with their goals. We understand Anthony, you arent making any new points. We understand your loyalty is with Trump. Why do you keep trying to respond as if you are saying something earth shaking?

May as well go back to the Q boards, my guy. No echochambers here.