Robot roll call Impeachment

"Pelosi herself said impeachment should be bipartisan or not at all. "

'Should' being the operative word.

It assumes that Representatives will honestly and openly consider the case, without predetermination.

It assumes they will honor their oath to protect and hold allegiance to the Constitution above all else.

It assumes they will be loyal to the United States over their political party.
 
PoliTalker said:
"Pelosi herself said impeachment should be bipartisan or not at all. "

'Should' being the operative word.

It assumes that Representatives will honestly and openly consider the case, without predetermination.

It assumes they will honor their oath to protect and hold allegiance to the Constitution above all else.

It assumes they will be loyal to the United States over their political party.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof that they aren't doing the above? Besides accusations?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



What that says is that representatives sometimes vote against their own beliefs if they think their constituents believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well lol.

What does it mean when so many of their constituents ‘believe otherwise’?

And these are democrat constituents we’re talking about. They’ve all been deluded by Fox?
 
The whole "it must be bipartisan" is a ridiculous constriction to place on oneself. It presupposes good faith and conscience on the part of all.
If the by sheer number the senate can "acquit" the president and that number is a lockstep cult that does not share the frame of reference of reason, rule of law
and morality, then you could never bring impeachment, even if Trump got on Air Force 1 and nuked the USA.

If Republicans will simply go along with any trouble Trump gets himself into you could never have impeachment with "Pelosi's" earlier stance.

The "rule" should simply include it is preferable if it has bipartisan support. Bipartisan support
should not be the crucible or test. For instance, you could have impeachment when there is bipartisan support when NO wrong was actually done.

The substance and virtue of the case must always dictate how they act. Here no person of good conscience can do other than impeach Trump and remove
him from office. Anyone voting otherwise is bought and corrupted and themselves violating their oaths. Hence my traitor list.
It is as ipso facto as it can get. You vote Trump out or you are yourself "worthy" of impeachment.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Your baffling bullshit is at least amusing lol.

Do you possess magical powers to get into Zelensky’s head? Or Trump’s head, for that matter? The call transcript is innocuous. The ‘favor’ was prefaced with things that our country *had already done* for Ukraine and NOT made contingent on anything else. And that should be apparent to anyone who can read on the 7th grade level.

You can argue that it was improper or unseemly for Trump to bring up Hunter Biden but that hardly rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Then again, it can be argued that Hunter’s relationship with a sketchy Ukrainian gas firm wasn’t an unreasonable topic—at all, really. Trump has only been harping about government corruption since about 2015 or so.

Add to it, nothing was done by Zelensky—the ‘favor’ apparently went in one ear and out the other. But I expect that goes on quite a bit with our foreign handouts. Ukraine got their lethal weapons that were withheld under Obama; therefore, Russia was prevented from taking all of Europe and invading Great Britain. Everyone should be happy.

Remind me again what this is all about.
Click to expand...

Nice job of playing dumb.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Micawber,



I wish you were on those House committees so that you could have explained this to the Republicans who expressed the same ignorance of the law.

And the ironic thing was the number of times they complained about the procedure and said it wouldn't happen that way in a 'real' court of law.

Proving they have zero qualms about arguing it from both sides of the knowledge issue.

What hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I wish I was too. But in innumerable other ways and perhaps this one too, the Republicans played the fool and were outed for exactly what they are.
We are beating our heads against a wall. I could spend 10 hours splaying out each article of evidence presented in list form here and the conclusive cumulative effect
would convince any rational and open mind exactly and with zero room for doubt what happened here. But we are not dealing with open minds. We are dealing
with people whose alpha-omega intent is to provide themselves with a figleaf, a mere piffle and trifle, and to cling to that to the exclusion of everything
else so they can mouth the "nay" vote. Quite simply they are politically corrupted and country and truth be damned. They are under orders to acquit. All they are doing
is looking for the largest fig leaf to cover the shame. The result is preordained.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I am willing to wager that all of those former federal prosecutors were in cases where the accused were allowed to face their accusers. I bet those same prosecutors would agree that this is an example of not having due process stipulations.
Click to expand...

Basically, Democrats don’t want to subject their crime theory to things like due process until it gets to the Senate—which still isn’t a slam dunk based on some of what I’ve been hearing.

There was no debating the guilt of either Nixon or Clinton in their Senate trials—it was only a question of whether it warranted removal.

Democrats want to skip ‘the due process thing lol’ and proclaim Trump guilty with their *tightly controlled* Schiff hearing. Yet it seems to surprise them that republicans [and even some democrats] are calling bullshit on it. I guess they realize this but who knows..but democrats are faced with trying to establish Trump’s guilt in the Senate, where the other side gets to tell their story, finally.

Where Republicans get to call one or both of the Biden’s to see if Trump may have had a *responsibility* to ask Zelensky for an investigation. Pelosi and company may insist that they are innocent but, rest assured, they’ll be sitting there with both fingers crossed while the Biden’s are under oath.

To say things could get messy for Democrats is an understatement. Democrats warrant their own chapter in The Book of Hubris.
 
"How do you plead Mr Trump

Guilty"


"Ok off to jail with you then."


Transcript approximation ^

Darth at law: No, no, when Trump said guilty he was talking about something else, not the plea deal."

This is essentially what Darth is reduced to arguing. ^^^^
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Southern Chicken,

The House hearings showed very clearly that Republicans were only interested in defending President Trump, not hearing the evidence against him.
Click to expand...

What do you call a ‘trial’ where the accused has no one to testify to their innocence?
 
Southern Chicken said:
I am willing to wager that all of those former federal prosecutors were in cases where the accused were allowed to face their accusers. I bet those same prosecutors would agree that this is an example of not having due process stipulations.
Click to expand...

So far, there has been no trial.

If there is a trial and "his accusers" are required to testify...we may discuss this further.
 
TTQ64 said:
So now he continues being president enacting the republican agenda of appointing racist judges, attacking Black and Brown people, defunding education, welfare and foodstamps, eliminating healthcare and did I mention attacking BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE?

I guess if you're not Black or Brown......you have nothing to worry about.


Seems racist, right wing, republican men, are above the law.
Click to expand...

what have you got to lose except your mind.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top