Reply With Quote
Based on the evidence, how would you have voted?
I don’t know what you call the swamp necessarily. If we talking about corruption, greed and lies, he’s the personification of the swamp.
Based on the evidence, how would you have voted?
So you’re deferring you’re opinion to Tulsi Gabbard?
DoxxxMC
24/7
He's simply afraid to answer.
DMC votes present in basically every thread here.
I think he know he’ll be logically destroyed if he answers honestly
You cannot remove the fact that impeachment was brought about by partisan politics. You're asking me to decide on evidence presented by what I consider to be extremely dishonest groups of people for political gain.
If you trust the government to do the right thing, then there shouldn't be any issues. If Trump isn't removed from office then obviously the impeachment wasn't warranted. If he is, then obviously the impeachment was warranted. Do you want to remove partisan politics now?
Weren't you permanently banned for refusing to stop trying to doxx someone here?
DMC's answer is no one in office should ever be impeached for any reason.
#1) We have a written confession - the memo/partial transcript
#2) We have two verbal confessions - trump (ukraine & china both invited to the party) on nat'l tv and mulvaney on nat'l tv admitting to holding up aid and to "get over it"
#3) 18 Corroborating trump appointed trump administration witnesses - all career professionals who risked their careers to testify under oath and ONE trump toadie to who donated a cool MILLION to be given a cushy ambassador position - and even this Cultist admitted that "everyone was in the loop and all were taking orders directly from trump to julie-yanni to the staff members in the loop"
#4) 100% Cover up of all do ents and strong arming by trump of all top tier staff positions to refuse to testify under oath
which all point to the obvious - Trump did it. admitted it. Provided written and verbal proof of his crime.
Still time for trump and any trump witness to testify under oath to "exonerate" trump and every senator should be open to any and all facts - but based on current evidence - any REASONABLE person can have a really informed opinion of trumps guilt or innocense.
Unless you are a complete pussy and have no nutsack to even state your opinion?
no
were you?
So? Are you incapable of making a decision based on the evidence presented?
I asked you to weigh in with your opinion. If you thought the articles of impeachment were warranted I think it’s difficult to take issue with bringing them to the senate considering the congressional oath of office. I didn’t realize it would be so difficult for you to weigh in with an opinion.
I'm not compelled to do so since I don't trust the evidence presenters or gatherers. If I trust the government, then whatever the outcome is, I will support that.
Since no republicans and a few democrats disagreed with impeachment, it's not a cut and dry case. It's just about numbers of each party. Right and wrong is now about who holds power in which house. For that reason I will wait for the outcome before passing judgement.I asked you to weigh in with your opinion. If you thought the articles of impeachment were warranted I think it’s difficult to take issue with bringing them to the senate considering the congressional oath of office. I didn’t realize it would be so difficult for you to weigh in with an opinion.
I disagree. I think there was enough evidence presented to make a decision as to whether or not the president’s behavior warranted impeachment.
Of course you do. You're a democrat though and through.
If any POTUS murders someone in cold blood in front of hundreds of witnesses and on national television, DMC thinks he shouldn't be impeached.
No, I’m able to remove partisan politics from my decision making process. I think the evidence that he obstructed congress is pretty cut and dry. I also think a pattern has been established. The mueller report teed up multiple counts of obstruction of justice even though they weren’t considered in the articles of impeachment. I use that to inform my opinion.
The abuse of power is less straightforward, but the evidence is compelling. I mean you already kind of conceded you agree with this article. You described him as an uncontrollable CEO upstream. But you don’t want to be pinned down as supporting the articles of impeachment so you come up with bull excuses about not trusting the evidence gatherers.
no, you just feel justified in being partisan because you think you're right.
And many people in congress disagree.I think the evidence that he obstructed congress is pretty cut and dry. I also think a pattern has been established.
So you considered evidence that wasn't presented. You'd make a great juror.The mueller report teed up multiple counts of obstruction of justice even though they weren’t considered in the articles of impeachment. I use that to inform my opinion.
You think that, because he's uncontrollable, impeaching makes sense as a way to mitigate the damage he can do but impeachment has to stand on its own merits. The insane amount of lobbying by MSM and the losing party in the 2016 election to remove a duly elected POTUS is what should stagger you. It doesn't shock me at all though, and because the partisanship knows no limits, win at all costs and such.. I don't feel compelled to participate in your conscience clearing exercises. You can exonerate yourself all day and claim objectiveness, but there's enough history here to see that's just bull .
The abuse of power is less straightforward, but the evidence is compelling. I mean you already kind of conceded you agree with this article. You described him as an uncontrollable CEO upstream. But you don’t want to be pinned down as supporting the articles of impeachment so you come up with bull excuses about not trusting the evidence gatherers.
No. I just looked at the evidence presented with an open mind.
That’s the process. But if he committed an impeachable act, it’s the duty of congress to draw up articles of impeachment.
Im not a juror and I’m not bound by rules to come to my conclusions. I use all information available. You’re welcome to do the same since you don’t trust the evidence gatherers.
No I don’t. Don’t put words in my mouth. I think he should be impeached if he committed impeachable offenses.
This is an emotional rant. If Donald committed impeachable offenses he deserves to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate. That what the cons ution dictates.
I’m sorry that you’re incapable of not looking at this through an emotional partisan lens, but you’re not in the minority here so it’s not surprising.
I am giving her opinion as an example of my position.
There's no way you can assess how open your mind is. Can you provide an example of you crossing the isle with your opinions?
If you trust they did their jobs correctly, then why not trust the process to play out?That’s the process. But if he committed an impeachable act, it’s the duty of congress to draw up articles of impeachment.
Since impeachment isn't a judicial process, and the participants are partisan, there's no reliable information on which I can form a real opinion.Im not a juror and I’m not bound by rules to come to my conclusions. I use all information available. You’re welcome to do the same since you don’t trust the evidence gatherers.
But we've already determined that "impeachable" only means that a partisan group of the majority can vote to impeach. It's not decided in a court of law. So yes, that's your modus operandi. It's obvious.No I don’t. Don’t put words in my mouth. I think he should be impeached if he committed impeachable offenses.
You like to repeat yourself. It doesn't make you any more correct. I already addressed the sacred "impeachable offenses" concept with the fact of partisanship.This is an emotional rant. If Donald committed impeachable offenses he deserves to be impeached by the house and tried in the senate. That what the cons ution dictates.
You're not the benchmark for objectivity or logic and reasoning here, regardless how you fancy yourself to be just that.I’m sorry that you’re incapable of not looking at this through an emotional partisan lens, but you’re not in the minority here so it’s not surprising.
Damage to himself, sure.Dems can say one seat doesn't matter. Fair enough. But this guy's story does do damage.
Trying to coerce him to vote for impeachment, or else have support withheld?
That's eerily similar to the charges against Trump in the impeachment.
In a time where GOP members of Congress are actually leaving the party or losing hand over fist, this genius actually decides its a good idea to jump on a sinking ship. He made himself unelectable. And all for?
I know the story he told of coercion. That's the crux of the matter you're willfully ignoring.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
