• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

alfaniner said:
Whatever points McCarthy scored with Trump by going to Florida to (kiss his ring) have probably been negated by the broken story. He's probably on Trump's **** list now. And those are always carved in stone.
Click to expand...

Lindsey Graham wants a word. So does Lying Ted Cruz. And Little Marco Rubio.
 
bruto said:
I've been trying to follow the defense, and it seems approximately like this:

Prosecutor: Here's a picture of the victim, dead after being shot.

Defense: But we don't know who shot him.

P: Here is the defendant with a gun in his hand.

D: But we don't know if he shot it.

P: Here is a picture of him pulling the trigger and the gun smoking.

D: But we don't know whether it was his bullet that hit the victim.

P: Here is the ballistics report that says it was.

D: But we don't know what he was aiming at.

P: Here is a picture of him aiming at the victim after threatening to kill him.

D: But did anyone see the bullet? Unless you can see the bullet, you have to allow for the possibility that the victim was shot by Jewish lasers from outer space. Acquit!
Click to expand...

Worked for O.J. Simpson.
 
Hmmm... Additional evidence entered, but witnesses declined. Now on actual closing arguments. After the turn-around this morning I expected this trial to go on for weeks. Now it looks to be done by end of day.
 
Stacyhs said:
Nice. Criticize the Dems who are standing up and doing the right thing when it's the Republicans who are betraying this country yet again. :mad:
Click to expand...
There's "standing up and doing the right thing" and then there's "bungling/half-assing doing the right thing."

One can simultaneously applaud intent and also criticize decisions made (ostensibly) in support of that intent.

We are no more served by reflexive dismissal of criticism (especially distorting the criticism from specific to overbroad) than they are. It doesn't help us.

I probably don't need to point out my take on this, though.

They were already off the mark focusing yet again on "Trump said mean things, punish him!" direction, now they've punted away the chance to dig deeper.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
There's "standing up and doing the right thing" and then there's "bungling/half-assing doing the right thing."

One can simultaneously applaud intent and also criticize decisions made (ostensibly) in support of that intent.

We are no more served by reflexive dismissal of criticism (especially distorting the criticism from specific to overbroad) than they are. It doesn't help us.

I probably don't need to point out my take on this, though.

They were already off the mark focusing yet again on "Trump said mean things, punish him!" direction, now they've punted away the chance to dig deeper.
Click to expand...

How exactly did they do that?
 
I'm about to go shopping, so will probably miss the denouement, but I'm fully confident that the Republican Party will run true to form and go on record as more supportive of Rothschild space lasers and white supremacist gun nuts than of democracy.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
bruto said:
I'm about to go shopping, so will probably miss the denouement, but I'm fully confident that the Republican Party will run true to form and go on record as more supportive of Rothschild space lasers and white supremacist gun nuts than of democracy.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

No, you're right. Counting on a Republican to stand up for democracy is like asking a Snake to stand up for a mouse. McConnell has made his position known that the will vote to :jaw-droppacquit. That says he knows what his caucus is planning. McConnell ha always been a machiavellian leader. He has his own ideas, but he is not going to chance things that might break up the party.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Bravo to the House Managers. Their closing statements were world class.
Click to expand...

But, but, but....we were just told by van der Veen that it was awful! That they had nothing, that they didn't mention the Constitution or the First Amendment. How could they have a case?

Van der Veen is now claiming that conviction would set a precedent for impeaching a hoard of others like those Dems he showed in their ridiculous 'fight' video. That's a lie because members of Congress are not listed as those who can be impeached. And none of those ended up with riots happening either. Sheesh.
 
Stacyhs said:
OMG...he's out and out lying about about what Harris said.

ETA: Yep...he'a TRUMP lawyer.
Click to expand...

Not just that, he's claiming the BLM 'riots' were worse than taking over the Capitol building and threatening to kill the legislators.:rolleyes:


ETA: He also opened claiming the House managers lied.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Nice. Criticize the Dems who are standing up and doing the right thing.... :mad:
Click to expand...

I think your anger is misplaced.

I want more than anything for Trump to be convicted. That’s vanishingly unlikely to happen, but I will criticize Democrats for getting a motion to get witnesses passed, with some Republican support, and then saying “never mind”. For reasons already given.

I think they mishandled Merrick Garland’s appointment. I think they mishandled the first impeachment, and I think they’re mishandling the conclusion of this one.

So there.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not just that, he's claiming the BLM 'riots' were worse than taking over the Capitol building and threatening to kill the legislators.:rolleyes:


ETA: He also opened claiming the House managers lied.
Click to expand...

Not just that, but fails to mention that Trump's support for "law and order" also includes the misconduct of racist police like those whose conduct set off the BLM protests.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think your anger is misplaced.

I want more than anything for Trump to be convicted. That’s vanishingly unlikely to happen, but I will criticize Democrats for getting a motion to get witnesses passed, with some Republican support, and then saying “never mind”. For reasons already given.

I think they mishandled Merrick Garland’s appointment. I think they mishandled the first impeachment, and I think they’re mishandling the conclusion of this one.

So there.
Click to expand...

Can you direct me to those reasons already given as I do not see them?

ETA: Garland and the first impeachment are irrelevant to my post. "So there"? What is this? The playground?
 
Last edited:
Van der Veen is claiming fraud and manufactured evidence. As I cited earlier, he is guilty of doing the exact same thing with his Kamala Harris claim. He took a quote of hers completely out of context and made it appear that she was referring to rioters. She was not. Hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom