51 - 49

It’s already been established that the Articles did not rise to the level of impeachment.

Bolton is a moot issue.
 
Earl said:
It’s already been established that the Articles did not rise to the level of impeachment.

Bolton is a moot issue.
Click to expand...

By "established" you mean conveniently and falsely claimed by Trump's sycophantic ass-lickers including yourself.

Come November, Trump will be a moot issue.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
If you can't tell by his interviews and statements then you are a fool.
Click to expand...

You're assuming!
I find it strange you Stepfords turn on your own,to protect Trump.
I was embarrassed for you the way Top disrespected you on your own thread.
I guess you just have to grin and bare it!
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Ever hear of a hostile witness? Look it up.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should, moron. Suggesting Bolton can't testify because he may provide substantive evidence that jeopardizes Trump is looney ignorant.
A hostile witness issue in law simply involves the manner in which he can be examined using leading questions on direct, should the case
be established and the need be present due to recalcitrant and obstructive testimony using normal open ended inquiry of ones own witnesses.
In other words, hostility is not grounds to exclude a witness.

You need to get past the "we fucking ran a sham trial" issue before you can assess the motives of all the people you censored in sealing off the
President from justice under the law.

It's hilarious when non-lawyers pose as condescending while flailing with legalese. :laugh: Stick to Billy Beer and Cheetos, your areas of expertise.
 
It’s already been established that the Articles did not rise to the level of impeachment.

Bolton is a moot issue.

Ya esta.
 
Micawber said:
Maybe you should, moron. Suggesting Bolton can't testify because he may provide substantive evidence that jeopardizes Trump is looney ignorant.
A hostile witness issue in law simply involves the manner in which he can be examined using leading questions on direct, should the case
be established and the need be present due to recalcitrant and obstructive testimony using normal open ended inquiry of ones own witnesses.
In other words, hostility is not grounds to exclude a witness.

You need to get past the "we fucking ran a sham trial" issue before you can assess the motives of all the people you censored in sealing off the
President from justice under the law.

It's hilarious when non-lawyers pose as condescending while flailing with legalese. :laugh: Stick to Billy Beer and Cheetos, your areas of expertise.
Click to expand...

I would expect nothing less from a halfwit partisan hack such as yourself. Your side could have issued a subpoena to Bolton but Schiff was in too much of a rush to wait if Bolton went to court to block a subpoena. Get back to me when you have anything intelligent to add.
 
One thing is certain, the fanatics (they are all fanatics now) in the Democrat Socialist party have failed in their attempt to remove a sitting president that the American people elected...in an election year.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
I would expect nothing less from a halfwit partisan hack such as yourself. Your side could have issued a subpoena to Bolton but Schiff was in too much of a rush to wait if Bolton went to court to block a subpoena. Get back to me when you have anything intelligent to add.
Click to expand...

Parroting the party line.Obviously can't think for yourself anymore!
Alzheimer's getting worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top