[QUOTE=pxmcc;1062009044]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb1961
I didn't read any of that nonsense you are spewing because it's just that...
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...of-impeachment[/QUOTE
IS THIS THE CIVILITY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PXMCC??
ya well go fuck yourself too u little whiny know-nothing bitch..
and get the fuck off my thread while you're at it. this is why we can't have nice things around here..
i'm sorry to hear you never learned how to read. the state of american education. smdh. |
This it how you started your POLITICALLY bias thread:
I want to hear from both sides but lets keep it CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL the LACK OF CIVILITY in the Political Forum makes it UNAPPEALING TO ME .)
And you are immune from the "civility" of your foul mouth comments because it's" unappealing to you "...you can dish it out but you can't take it.
You think you'll EVER address this post of BM's? I know you won't because you CAN'T!!
You're a pro at the art of deflection....your answer to BM's post:
"you made several good points...which i wont address at this time. You have nothing to address this with."
but lets say Trump commits a felony
That's the hypothetical that you're basing a conviction on? That's TDS talking. If the House had solid charges and proof they would have brought solid articles of impeachment. They didn't have anything so they tried to make it a fishing expedition. Anyone with any common sense saw through that whole debacle.
In any other felony case you have to get an indictment. That means proving the case is solid enough to take to trial(in a nutshell). The House didn't do that. They based their whole argument on a phone call.
Despite Schiff paraphrasing the whole transcript there was nothing in the transcript that came close to felonious behavior. Then they moved to a quid pro quo argument.
Despite calling several witnesses and even leading some of those into giving their opinions there was not one witness that actually said Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Bolton wasn't going to say anything different than what they already had. That's why they didn't call him but instead demanded the Senate call him. They knew the Senate wouldn't do it and opted to play it up that the Senate didn't perform a proper trial when in fact they did. It was the responsibility of the House to get all the evidence before referring the articles for trial.
Beyond that, If you read the transcript, Trump was trying to get the new Ukrainian President to investigate whether Biden used a quid pro quo to deflect heat from his son and the company his son was sitting on a BOD for. That's corruption of the highest magnitude. Trump asked them to look into it. He never said if you don't I'm withholding money but even if he had it wouldn't have been any more or less illegal than what Biden did and is on tape bragging about it. As chief law enforcement officer he has the right to ask another country to investigate something that smells fishy regarding other politicians... to investigate corruption.
That's what draining the swamp looks like. The fact that it was a potential 2020 opponent looked bad on the surface but it was far from treasonous.
There was no felony that they could even legitimately get an indictment on so there was nothing to compel testimony or further discovery. It was all a fishing expedition.
Trump may not be as polished of a politician as say Clinton was but he's every bit as smart if not smarter. That drives the left crazy. He's playing chess while they're trying to figure out if the checkers pieces go on the red square or the black.
