The Impeachment Trial

[Mountain Man]

Senate support seems to be firming up being no new witnesses. This could all be over by tomorrow.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...likely-defeat/

Democrats are already crying, saying that Trump can't be acquitted without a "proper" trial.

[Cow Poke]

Senate support seems to be firming up being no new witnesses. This could all be over by tomorrow.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...likely-defeat/

Democrats are already crying, saying that Trump can't be acquitted without a "proper" trial.

They'll use it as a campaign issue, no doubt, which is probably what they wanted all along.

[Mountain Man]

They'll use it as a campaign issue, no doubt, which is probably what they wanted all along.

And Trump will campaign on being acquitted, so...

[seanD]

And Trump will campaign on being acquitted, so...

It will work far better in favor of Trump's reelection, and I'm guessing the political ads will state what looks like the obvious to everyone -- that the Dems engaged in a political coup the day he was elected, using false accusations, but failed.

[RumTumTugger]

and the house managers keep trying to prove they are great mind readers as if thinking Americans will believe they can.

[Mountain Man]

So Elizabeth Warren asks (question read by Chief Justice John Roberts):

"Does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which GOP Senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?"

Then this happened...

Screenshot_2020-01-30 WATCH Roberts Gives Priceless Look After Reading Warren's Ridiculous Ques.jpeg



https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...draft-n2560439

[Mountain Man]

roberts.jpg

[Watermelon]

I have a simple question for all of the "Orange Man Bad" people.

If Biden was not running for President would it be alright for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate what happen with Hunter Biden's deal and Joe Biden's extortion to stop the investigation (Because it does look bad)?

Some things to think about before answering, I'd like to put these up front and give my agreements to save time. (Please no mind reading acts as proof of your agreement)

I don't want to hear that Trump would not have asked, if Biden was not running for President. None of you are mind readers and there is no other evidence to support that Trump would not have asked. Even if you use this argument I'm not asking if Trump would or would not, I'm asking would it be alright for him to ask.

Also, If you are going tell me, that as Biden and the Dems assert, that Biden has been exonerated of any wrong doing here. Give me the agencies that have investigated this (News services are nice but they can't exonerate anyone).

Also, with no exoneration the Biden's situation looks shady at best and corrupt at worse. I contend that if Biden was not running for President then there would be no problem asking Ukraine to look into this because "it looks really bad". Remember Trump never ask Ukraine "to dig up dirt on Biden", he ask for them to look into what was going on. Important: Trump never ask for an specific out come he asked for them to look into it.

And don't give me anything on the only answer Biden's team gave, that Biden wanted the prosecutor fired because he was not doing a good job investigating Baresma, because after the prosecutor was fire the case was dropped and Hunter was in the clear. This looks very much like obstruction of justice to me.

This question is an important one because it goes to a point that was made about mixed motive. If there is a another legitimate reason to do something that has to be assumed to be the reason (Under assumption of innocence we run by in the U.S.). The evidence that the motives where corrupt are all "Mind Reading" by the Dems and their witnesses.

[demi-conservative]

One charge against Trump has involved alleged personal motive, and one defense argument is that having mixed motives is not criminal per se. Not surprisingly, the Fake News spin is that this defense argument is 'having mixed motives justifies anything'.

[Tassman]

valid questions coming from the Presidents Counsel right now. I'd love ot see schiffs face during this

They are saying that abuses of power in order to get reelected could be considered in the national interest and therefore not impeachable. If that doesn't worry you I just don't know what does.

[rogue06]

Senate support seems to be firming up being no new witnesses. This could all be over by tomorrow.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...likely-defeat/

Democrats are already crying, saying that Trump can't be acquitted without a "proper" trial.

The fact that some are now trying to get Chief Justice Roberts to demand that witnesses be called is telling.

[rogue06]

Sam First "abuse of power" is only a heading to group crimes under it means nothing in it self. The articles of impeachment do not list the crimes that lead up to "abuse of power" so it is meaning less.

It's sort of like saying you're being charged with and prosecuted for "committing a crime" without the actual crime being listed.

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42438[/ATTACH]

The look you give when you realize that question came from someone who taught law at Harvard.

[Mountain Man]

And just to add to the circus atmosphere, the final question was read, and Jerry Nadler quickly stood up and moved towards the microphone to answer. Schiff jumped up from his seat a second too late and can be heard saying, "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" Nadler studiously ignored him and will go down in history as the last House manager to speak during the opening arguments for President Trump's impeachment trial, much to Schiff's annoyance.

So the Trump campaign naturally made the awkward moment even more hilarious by putting it in slow motion accompanied by the "Chariots of Fire" theme.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-trial-moment/

[Mountain Man]

One charge against Trump has involved alleged personal motive, and one defense argument is that having mixed motives is not criminal per se. Not surprisingly, the Fake News spin is that this defense argument is 'having mixed motives justifies anything'.

Yep... Sam pulled that exact same bait-and-switch in his thread about "impeachment standards" and got bent out of shape when I called him on it.