The trial of Donald J. Trump

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

So at what point does lying befores the Senate become more obstructions?

It's called "perjury" in Canada also! Like lying about being in Canada.

But I hate to burst your cum bubble in which you live, but just because some Loon, like you is posting it's a "lie" doesn't make it a "lie." If the House members under PussLousy"s thumb had told the truth there would be not articles of impeachment and there would be not "trial"! Which means there would be 10-15 fewer threads on here.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Trump's White House Counsel Just Told the Most Blatant Lie on the Floor of the Senate in Trump's Defense, and People Are Calling Him Out


https://secondnexus.com/trump-white-house-counsel-lied

Yeah he did, but the biggest lie of day 1 was by Moscow Mitch. He claims he was following the Clinton guidelines for a fair trial. He’s not going to allow a fair trial, he’s leading a cover up. His goal is acquittal and the 53 members of the trump party will follow. Collins, Gardner, Romney, Murkouski aren’t going to rock the boat.

Moscow Mitch won’t allow witnesses next week, it’s a coverup!

[oeb11]

j666- after the fixed and rigged house procedures to Impeach - to call a coverup is just fantasy of the fascist DPST's.

No grip on reality at all for those addicted to the ny wapo Fascist DPST narrative.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Agree with your summation, HF.

Whiny fascist DPST forwarded a nothing burger of Articles of Impeachment.


lying Fascist DPST's .




Hypocrites.

And the gay Trumpers disinformation has begun!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's called "perjury" in Canada also! Like lying about being in Canada.

But I hate to burst your cum bubble in which you live, but just because some Loon, like you is posting it's a "lie" doesn't make it a "lie." If the House members under PussLousy"s thumb had told the truth there would be not articles of impeachment and there would be not "trial"! Which means there would be 10-15 fewer threads on here.

Speculating again counselor?

Seems like your really griping about jury selection.....I thought you proclaim that jury selection does not matter.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by oeb11

...


If witnesses are called, it will be very interesting to see what the fascist DPST's have to say about calling the bidens - to which they are diametrically opposed.

Hypocrites.

If witnesses are called this will be a shit show for another 3 months. That means the Republican Senators will be sitting in the Senate 10-12 hours a day, not campaigning, not passing legislation. Same with the Dim Senators.

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

What also amuses me is that both the Dims and the Repubs both appear to forget that their tv audience is well equipped to Google search every statement made to determine factual basis, or lies, regardless of speaker. Not only is this stuff going straight into news reports, opposing folks will be calling the other side out on this stuff, during the proceedings. Anyway. Back to highly entertaining. And, one has to think that at least a few folks will torch their careers.

Google search what the Dims and the Republicans say. I've done it. The first result page will be Dim talking points from approved Dim media sources.

Originally Posted by WTF

And the gay Trumpers disinformation has begun!

With his first post on this thread WDF plays the gay card and concedes defeat.

[I B Hankering]

.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Trump's White House Counsel Just Told the Most Blatant Lie on the Floor of the Senate in Trump's Defense, and People Are Calling Him Out


https://secondnexus.com/trump-white-house-counsel-lied

I thought this was an interesting "observation" pointed out in the article

Opinions were divided on legality but unified on ethicality.

Different opinion on legality is the hallmark of this impeachment. Is what the President did legal or illegal? We can read both opinions from Legal/ Constitutional scholars which Jaxson reminded us in another post that the only "correct" scholars are the ones that take the Democrats side.


So I wonder if it is also unethical to mischaracterize information in this Senate trial.


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...vidence-101832


Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

Unredacted material shows he may have referred to the wrong "Mr. Z."


I do think attorney Cipollone should be asked to "clarify" his remarks. It is also a fact ( but not meant to excuse his remarks ) that to this day, there is testimony taken in the SCIF by Democrats that Republicans have not been allowed to see and there are documents relating to the WB that Schiff has and Republicans have demanded that Shiff will not turn over. In other words, there is plenty of "unethicality" to go around and if every lie told during this trial was prosecuted, there wouldn't be enough Senators left for a quorum.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Yeah he did, but the biggest lie of day 1 was by Moscow Mitch. He claims he was following the Clinton guidelines for a fair trial. He’s not going to allow a fair trial, he’s leading a cover up. His goal is acquittal and the 53 members of the trump party will follow. Collins, Gardner, Romney, Murkouski aren’t going to rock the boat.

Moscow Mitch won’t allow witnesses next week, it’s a coverup!

I thought they had enough over whelming evidence to prove quilt. They didn't need these witnesses in the House to find for impeachment but now they must be heard? I for one would love to hear Bolton speak but that isn't going to happen because Trump will exert EP on anybody in the Executive branch and like Shumer said, the American people can decide, well the educated ones anyway, can decide if it is a legal constitutional practice and no inference of guilt should be made for observing it or inference of guilt should be made.


I still say, assume he did exactly what Democrats say he did and decide if it is an impeachable offense or not. I say it isn't because nobody has proven he broke a law with intent. This is the first impeachment in history where a proven crime wasn't committed and listed in the articles of impeachment which the Democrats could have done but chose not to.


All Presidents have abused their power according to the opposition party and you can't obstruct Congress by asserting your constitutional right to get a court ruling on a subpoena. Congress doesn't have an absolute right over the Executive branch unless the SC says it does. That is what the SC is for and the idea that "we don't have time for the SC to intervene" could be the scariest, most dangerous thing said in this entire matter. Someone said that the Congress doesn't need the SC to tell it how to do it's job. How stupid is that since the evidence is there to see that it does and it has.

[oeb11]

Agreed - HF the "rush" to impeach, and disregarding the SC - points to a power grab by the legislative branch of DPST's.

It is a clear rejection of Constitutional principles in favor of Fascist DPST political gain

[Unique_Carpenter]

But the lies are simply part of the entertainment value of the charade.

[eccieuser9500]

What if the next president is a Socialist and she/he does this. Get over it?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Is what the President did legal or illegal?

Illegal. He broke the law holding up the funds. But it is the opinion of this DOJ (and I use that term loosely) that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He chooses his top law enforcer, so be it.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Or was he assisting the Ukrainians by suggesting they had fraud going on in their country at that energy outfit.

[eccieuser9500]

He should have notified Congress. So . . . yeah, he broke the law. Doing it, and keeping it a secret. Double Whammy.