Impeachment Trial
- Thread starter Fun For All
- Start date
Obviously the voting at the impeachment trial was cheated.
We all know Trump was convicted and the GOP just tried to cheat the count.
Stop the steal.
We all know Trump was convicted and the GOP just tried to cheat the count.
Stop the steal.
Nice, except what Clinton did was lying under the oath: not only was it impeachable offence, but it was a proven fact. What Trump did was in a grey area and the proof (beyond a speculation) was never presented: such poof should have included a proof of direct instructions for the crowd to use force that cannot be mistaken for metaphorical statement. So, based on the facts, Clinton should have been impeached while Trump should have bee acquitted. Basically, if someone was caught going through the red light, he should be fined. If someone killed somebody but there are not enough evidence to prove it beyond the reasonable doubts - he must be acquitted. And I am pretty sure, there is no way to prove that Trump wanted to have a violent attack instead of a mass, loud, and very long lawful protest on the streets and outside the Capitol Hill.
This wasn't a criminal trial.
Impeachments are specifically supposed to NOT be criminal trials.
Reasonable doubt is a nonsensical standard.
The majority of the Senate agrees he is guilty. Even more than the ones who voted to convict also think he is guilty, but claimed they couldn't because of the discredited "constitutional" argument.
Probably couldn't prove that he wanted the Capitol stormed beyond a RD. But he did nothing when the stormers were in the building and he certainly wanted the crowd AT the Capitol intimidating the lawmakers. The only ? is whether he wanted them to go inside before - to his delight - they actually DID break in.
Plus, he fostered the Big Lie that he really won the election for 2 months plus.
It's bizarre, unpresidential behaviour and enough to constitute whatever the Senate decides a "high crime and misdemeanour" should be.
You explained it so well, I wish you could explain it to Twitter so he’d get his account back!
Nice try. If you could have made him look foolish by debunking his points you would have done so and loved every second of it.
You have nothing with which to prove him wrong.
This is a bit over your head, but an interesting read.
Trial Memorandum of President William Jefferson Clinton
archive.nytimes.com
You don't understand the rues of evidence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is only required when it is a GOP person involved. When it is a dem it could be innuendo, debunked conspiracies, doctored or manipulated videos etc..
Hmm, lying about a blowjob vs pressuring a foreign country to make up dirt on your opponents and then trying to stage a coup including sending a mob to lynch your own vice president.
I can see your point.
Clinton had the balls to testify under oath. The now former only twice impeached POTUS in history who couldn't wait to tell his story, who couldn't wait to testify under oath, of course like every other phoney strong man refused and when he answered the question in writing with the help of his lawyers lied then with impunity.
See, your inability to separate fact and opinion is something you need to work on.
I know. As we've discussed, the core Conservative belief is that one set of rules applies to them and another to those they oppose.
Was he responding to Valcazar's post? The one that you brilliantly responded to with Rofl!!.
Similar threads
