And the news keeps getting worse for the democrat party

StoneByStone said:
But that's obviously a lie because they refused to have witnesses or all of the documents.
Click to expand...

They didn't need them. Schiff and Nadler both bloviated that the evidence was overwhelming and compelling. I am just trying to figure out how stupid leftists have to be to even continue listening to those dumb, ignorant partisan hacks.

Rep. Adam Schiff: Evidence Of The President's Wrongdoing Is Overwhelming
 
Nordberg said:
Trump has taken over the justice dept with Barr. This is scary shit. Trump tweets he does not like a potential sentence for Trump's crooks like Stone and Barr immediately interferes in the case. Trump is in charge of justice too.
Click to expand...

But you were A OK when Holder said he was Obama's butt boy right? STFU you boorish buffoon. :rolleyes:
 
StoneByStone said:
But that's obviously a lie because they refused to have witnesses or all of the documents.
Click to expand...
The Dems presented their evidence for their "lock solid case" of a case their 17 witnesses were evaluated. The Senate decided the House did not prove their case. Now perhaps if the House had not been so sloppy with making their case things might have turned out different. You only have Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler to blame. Not the Senate.
 
FastLane said:
The Dems presented their evidence for their "lock solid case" of a case their 17 witnesses were evaluated. The Senate decided the House did not prove their case. Now perhaps if the House had not been so sloppy with making their case things might have turned out different. You only have Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler to blame. Not the Senate.
Click to expand...

...or rushed. But seriously; there was NOTHING to this lie filled narrative and when Trump released the transcript, Schiff was too stupid to retreat.

Nadler: ‘Evidence is undisputed’ for impeachment"
 
FastLane said:
The Dems presented their evidence for their "lock solid case" of a case their 17 witnesses were evaluated. The Senate decided the House did not prove their case. Now perhaps if the House had not been so sloppy with making their case things might have turned out different. You only have Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler to blame. Not the Senate.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The Republicans admitted the opposite. They claimed that the point was made and further witnesses weren't needed, but Trump still shouldn't be removed.
So in other words, they didn't need further witnesses because they knew Trump tried to cheat, but he's a Republican, so they don't care.

Now if you were right, if the case wasn't proven, then that means they should have heard from Bolton and Parnas because they were presenting new evidence. So really, there's no way to spin this story that makes the Republicans look good. Either they knew Trump was guilty, but don't care, or they don't know if Trump is guilty, but don't want to here evidence so that they can keep living in ignorance. Kind of reminds me of how Hitler would tell Himmler that he didn't want to know what was going on in the concentration camps.
 
StoneByStone said:
Bullshit. The Republicans admitted the opposite. They claimed that the point was made and further witnesses weren't needed, but Trump still shouldn't be removed.
So in other words, they didn't need further witnesses because they knew Trump tried to cheat, but he's a Republican, so they don't care.

Now if you were right, if the case wasn't proven, then that means they should have heard from Bolton and Parnas because they were presenting new evidence. So really, there's no way to spin this story that makes the Republicans look good. Either they knew Trump was guilty, but don't care, or they don't know if Trump is guilty, but don't want to here evidence so that they can keep living in ignorance. Kind of reminds me of how Hitler would tell Himmler that he didn't want to know what was going on in the concentration camps.
Click to expand...

They argued that the House made its own case, in that it interviewed witnesses and delivered the Senate articles of impeachment.
 
StoneByStone said:
Bullshit. The Republicans admitted the opposite. They claimed that the point was made and further witnesses weren't needed, but Trump still shouldn't be removed.
So in other words, they didn't need further witnesses because they knew Trump tried to cheat, but he's a Republican, so they don't care.

Now if you were right, if the case wasn't proven, then that means they should have heard from Bolton and Parnas because they were presenting new evidence. So really, there's no way to spin this story that makes the Republicans look good. Either they knew Trump was guilty, but don't care, or they don't know if Trump is guilty, but don't want to here evidence so that they can keep living in ignorance. Kind of reminds me of how Hitler would tell Himmler that he didn't want to know what was going on in the concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Democrats claimed they had overwhelming evidence of guilt. When they realize they had no such thing, they started calling for the Senate to do what they clearly failed to do in the House.

Don't like the result, tough shit. Talk to Nancy's peons in the House that did such a poor job they should have prepared better.
 
StoneByStone said:
Bullshit. The Republicans admitted the opposite. They claimed that the point was made and further witnesses weren't needed, but Trump still shouldn't be removed.
So in other words, they didn't need further witnesses because they knew Trump tried to cheat, but he's a Republican, so they don't care.

Now if you were right, if the case wasn't proven, then that means they should have heard from Bolton and Parnas because they were presenting new evidence. So really, there's no way to spin this story that makes the Republicans look good. Either they knew Trump was guilty, but don't care, or they don't know if Trump is guilty, but don't want to here evidence so that they can keep living in ignorance. Kind of reminds me of how Hitler would tell Himmler that he didn't want to know what was going on in the concentration camps.
Click to expand...

In 1999, Democrats in the Senate refused to convict BillyBob Clinton for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury he admitted to, REAL crimes. The notion that leftists who defended the corrupt rot that is the Party of the Jackass can now lecture ANYONE on what is right is laughably stupid and inept.

Obstruction of Congress and Maladministration are NOT impeachable crimes, will never be impeachable crimes and one has to be a low IQ, uneducated dumbass to even make such moronic arguments.

So if Nadler argued that impeaching Clinton for REAL crimes was lowering the standard, WTF does he think he just did without any real crimes????

Good lord; leftists give new meaning to the words, gullible lemmings.
 
jimmymccready said:
The House was anything but sloppy.
We have a president who refuses to obey the law or act with American values.
Click to expand...

Cuckoo.gif
 
CFM said:
Democrats claimed they had overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...

They did, but that's beside the point. In a trial, you try to get as much relevant evidence as possible. Unless it's a shame trial, then evidence and facts don't matter. That's why I knew the Republicans were going to block witnesses and documents.
 
StoneByStone said:
They did, but that's beside the point. In a trial, you try to get as much relevant evidence as possible. Unless it's a shame trial, then evidence and facts don't matter. That's why I knew the Republicans were going to block witnesses and documents.
Click to expand...

Apparently not since after all the witnesses they called claiming they had overwhelming evidence, they demanded the Senate do what they clearly didn't do.

Nowhere in the definition of trial is the word witnesses. It says examination of evidence.
 
StoneByStone said:
Bullshit. The Republicans admitted the opposite. They claimed that the point was made and further witnesses weren't needed, but Trump still shouldn't be removed.
So in other words, they didn't need further witnesses because they knew Trump tried to cheat, but he's a Republican, so they don't care.

Now if you were right, if the case wasn't proven, then that means they should have heard from Bolton and Parnas because they were presenting new evidence. So really, there's no way to spin this story that makes the Republicans look good. Either they knew Trump was guilty, but don't care, or they don't know if Trump is guilty, but don't want to here evidence so that they can keep living in ignorance. Kind of reminds me of how Hitler would tell Himmler that he didn't want to know what was going on in the concentration camps.
Click to expand...

It's not merely because he's a RepubliCon...it's because the criminal will sign any shit they put in front of his repulsive orange face. He needs them to help him stay in office in order for him to stay out of prison.
 
CFM said:
Apparently not since after all the witnesses they called claiming they had overwhelming evidence, they demanded the Senate do what they clearly didn't do.

Nowhere in the definition of trial is the word witnesses. It says examination of evidence.
Click to expand...

Testimonies from witnesses are, obviously, considered evidence.
While they did have overwhelming evidence, it's beside the point. In a trial, you gather as much relevant information as possible. Unless the trial is a sham, that is.
 
StoneByStone said:
Testimonies from witnesses are, obviously, considered evidence.
While they did have overwhelming evidence, it's beside the point. In a trial, you gather as much relevant information as possible. Unless the trial is a sham, that is.
Click to expand...

but all evidence is not testimony. and even testimony is only evidence if it isn't hearsay.

you're fucking up with your arguments right now.
 
StoneByStone said:
Testimonies from witnesses are, obviously, considered evidence.
While they did have overwhelming evidence, it's beside the point. In a trial, you gather as much relevant information as possible. Unless the trial is a sham, that is.
Click to expand...

The House called their witnesses. If they didn't do a good job, it's not a sham if someone else doesn't do what someone else wants them to do.

The claim of overwhelming evidence is the point.

In a trial, by definition, you examine the evidence.

Trump is acquitted and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it is whine like the rest of the nigger lovers whose boy left in 2017 and who got their ass kicked in the 2016 election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top