And the news keeps getting worse for the democrat party

StoneByStone said:
Well it's up to the jury to determine if the testimony is legit. Provided it's a real trial, that is.
Click to expand...


SEVENTEEN WITNESSES' TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT TRIAL. STOP LYING..

THE STALIN-O-CRATS KEEP TRYING TO HIDE THE IC IG's TESTIMONY....?


WHY IS THAT ???
 
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...

Cheating seems to be the air, doesn’t it lol?

A big part of the problem for Democrats in their latest failed impeachment effort is the Biden’s conflict of interest in Ukraine. For it be outright, slam dunk DNC style cheating, Trump would have had to have asked for an investigation on Sanders or whoever.

In other words, someone who had diddly squat to do with Ukraine.

Given the authority granted by the constitution to the executive, it’s impossible to wring an actual crime out of that—it’s why House Democrats didn’t name one in their articles—they couldn’t. So they trotted their managers over to the Senate to try and *insinuate* that Trump committed a crime without specifying an actual statute that he violated.

But if Trump didn’t commit a crime what DID he commit? A transgression lol? Something inappropriate? That’s all that was left. So, the Senate basically decided the offense [however you want to label it] didn’t warrant a conviction regardless of how well it was established by evidence. To whatever extent it was even established at the time the Senate voted on it.

IOW, calling new witnesses would be a waste of time. It’s over.
 
Cinnabar said:
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.
Click to expand...

^Seriously deranged. I strongly recommend seeing a mental health expert before November 8th. I have never seen anyone in such dire need of one. ;)
 
Marxist Mason said:
History will record,the Senate didn't hold a trial,and that outside of Romney.
Every Republican Senator was a coward.
Click to expand...

By definition, a trial was held. History will record that the House claimed to have overwhelming evidence provided by witnesses then, when they knew they were wrong, expected the Senate to do things their way.

Romney is still mad Trump beat the person deemed the most qualified to ever run for the office knowing he couldn't beat the incompetent black BOY that made the claim.
 
StoneByStone said:
Testimonies from witnesses are, obviously, considered evidence.
Click to expand...

They had that in the House. Gullible twits were told that it was compelling and overwhelming.

StoneByStone said:
While they did have overwhelming evidence, it's beside the point.
Click to expand...

This is a painfully ignorant statement; how is it beside the point?

StoneByStone said:
In a trial, you gather as much relevant information as possible. Unless the trial is a sham, that is.
Click to expand...

In the trial, you present the overwhelming and compelling evidence you obtained and a Judge or Jury decides if it was indeed overwhelming or compelling. You don't re-investigate a case during the trial phase.

The Party of the Jackass needs uneducated dupes like you to remain in power. It's people like you who convince me the Phony media and our liberal educational establishment have terribly failed our citizens.
 
StoneByStone said:
Well it's up to the jury to determine if the testimony is legit. Provided it's a real trial, that is.
Click to expand...

The Senate is the jury silly muffins. They examine the evidence that is presented and decide. How sad that the Party of the Jackass couldn't even get ALL of their members in the House to vote for impeachment. How stupid is it to keep whining about the outcome?
 
Truth Detector said:
They had that in the House. Gullible twits were told that it was compelling and overwhelming.



This is a painfully ignorant statement; how is it beside the point?



In the trial, you present the overwhelming and compelling evidence you obtained and a Judge or Jury decides if it was indeed overwhelming or compelling. You don't re-investigate a case during the trial phase.

The Party of the Jackass needs uneducated dupes like you to remain in power. It's people like you who convince me the Phony media and our liberal educational establishment have terribly failed our citizens.
Click to expand...
Great post, TD.

Keep them coming.

The Dems are stuck on an impeachment conviction that failed.

It’s great to see the party of Socialism imploding.
 
Earl said:
Great post, TD.

Keep them coming.

The Dems are stuck on an impeachment conviction that failed.

It’s great to see the party of Socialism imploding.
Click to expand...

TY; same to you Amigo. It's fun watching the Party of the Jackass self implode and burn its own house down. ;)
 
Even Repub senators said Trump was guilty. Some argued that his behavior was not sufficient to deserve removal. But Trump was not found innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top