Reply With Quote
predicted exactly no one ITTTstill better than believing you had a case and Trump was gonna get convicted
“THEY NEEDED TO PROVE TRUMP ORDERED A POLICE DEPARTMENT HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER!!!”
predicted exactly no one ITTT
hater is a low information payaso
U just obliterated ur case of convicting trump with that statement
Point to where I said Trump would get convicted. I said all along that it’d come down to McConnell. McConnell effectively said that the impeachment managers proved their case but he believed the senate has no jurisdiction.
Things will get better brah
Point to where I said Trump would get convicted. I said all along that it’d come down to McConnell. McConnell effectively said that the impeachment managers proved their case but he believed the senate has no jurisdiction.
Ure a re brah
You just said I shouldn’t blame the jury, now you’re saying the most important juror in the room is dishonest and shouldn’t be believed. Pick a lane Jose.
Ure a re brah
Wait. U trust Mcconell???
Wow
Of course nobody in there should be trusted. They are all snakes. But IMO that would not have mattered if they were able to prove their case. The prosecution failed to prove their case thus the snakes voted the way they did.
If u claim and believe they did prove the case. Please provide the information as to what exactly they proved?
You’re literally derp jr
Things will get better brah
No tears, just disappointment in Congressional Republicans for turning a blind eye to Trump's dereliction of duty, his attack on the US Cons ution and the mayhem of his fascist thugs. This result was unsurprising, tbh.
Things will get better brah
Are you really this incapable of having a coherent discussion? I never said I trusted McConnell, my entire point is that they had no path towards 67 votes because McConnell is to use your word a snake.
The positions you’ve taken are completely contradictory and backwards. Your response to McConnell basically saying the impeachment managers proved their case is that he’s a snake and shouldn’t be believed, and now you’re saying that if they’d proven their case McConnell (the same snake who ostensibly lied about them having proven their case) has enough integrity where he would have been forced to convict.
Youre flinging random talking points and fortune cookie assumptions at the wall with zero regard for whether they align with everything else you’re saying.
Do u really think Dump.woulda been convicted with any other jury? I dont. They didnt have a case and I dont think they get a conviction anywhere tbqh
What was proven? What was dump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of?Are you really this incapable of having a coherent discussion? I never said I trusted McConnell, my entire point is that they had no path towards 67 votes because McConnell is to use your word a snake.
The positions you’ve taken are completely contradictory and backwards. Your response to McConnell basically saying the impeachment managers proved their case is that he’s a snake and shouldn’t be believed, and now you’re saying that if they’d proven their case McConnell (the same snake who ostensibly lied about them having proven their case) has enough integrity where he would have been forced to convict.
Youre flinging random talking points and fortune cookie assumptions at the wall with zero regard for whether they align with everything else you’re saying.
Impeachment isn't a court of law. I thought they made the case, a clear majority of the US Senate did too. If you don't think it was a putsch you lack a conscience, a spine or a properly functioning brain.
It remains to seen what legal hazards DJT will face, no predictions there, a lot of things could happen. I can think of few people more deserving of the antagonism than DJT.
Yes he would have been convicted with any other jury.
Did you see his lawyers?
(You don't have to answer, it's going to be bad faith uninformed trolling bull as usual but I just wanted to respond for the record.)
Beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t the set burden of proof for an impeachment trial. There’s conflicting cons utional interpretations over the standard of proof needed, but the idea that they needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is wrong. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for when you’re trying to take away someone’s civil liberties, which isn’t happening here.
The fact Trump’s lawyers stipulated to allowing hearsay into evidence (something a half decent lawyer would never do) that Trump was on the phone with McCarthy and refused to send the national guard while expressing delight about what was happening is sufficient to prove by a preponderance of evidence. That and other actions taken after the insurrection started, including tweeting out that Mike Pence didn’t come through for him when he knew Mike Pence’s life was in danger, make it clear he liked what he was seeing. Further, the fact that the protest permit for January 6th did NOT include a March towards the Capitol shows me that the insurrectionists went to the Capitol at Trump’s direction.
Dont feel like outlining everything but those are notable examples of evidence.
That just proved Trump is an asshole tbqh. No need for a trial I think we can all aggree beyond a reasonable doubt hes an asshole.
But him directing his re s to attack the capitol, imo was not proven. I just dont see how that can be proven besides having recordee evidence of him sayin go in the capitol and take the lawmakers hostage or kill them.
Susan Collins/Murkowski flat out asked Trump’s lawyers to specifically list every action Trump took to stop the insurrection once it had started, and they had nothing to say. That was what made Collins/Murkowski decide to convict, the fact Trump’s lawyers couldn’t articulate so much as one specific action he took to stop the insurrection beyond a video he posted on twitter where he called the insurrectionists very special people.
If every juror went into it with the same impartial mindset they had (even though they’re from the same party as Trump and in the case of Murkowski are going to face political consequences over it) there would have been more than enough votes to convict.
Of the 4 Republicans who announced theyre retiring in ‘22, 2 of them voted to convict, so the impeachment managers got 50% of the GOP senators who weren’t worried about political ramifications. If they got 50% of all GOP senators, they’d have their conviction.
Him failing to stop it does not make him guilty of planning it or ordering it tbqh
It’s pretty damning evidence and he didn’t just fail to stop it, he knowingly allowed it to go on and knowing left Pence + congress hung out to dry because he was pleased with how the insurrections were fighting for him (again, that’s all in the evidence that his lawyers stipulated to).
If I get caught trying to dump a dead body in the woods it doesn’t in and of itself make me guilty of murder, but I’ve got an uphill battle exonerating myself.
I think Murkowski would have faced more consequences over not convicting. She's sure to have a Trump primary challenge no matter what, and there is no way she didn't get a ton of Alaskan Democrat votes in 2016 to keep Joe Miller from taking the seat. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see her run as an independent in 2022. She desperately needs Democrat crossover votes to keep her seat.
Yeah I don’t get why she doesn’t caucus with the Dems at this point but I’m sure it’s big oil related.
Why do you feel the need to downplay the murder of a policeman?
I'd like an actual explanation from you without your usual whataboutism and tantrums.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
