The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[jimmyjazz 46001]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If he committed felonies, you should let Nancy know ASAP.  She left them out of the articles.

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

He'll probably answer.  It will just be a lie or an obfuscation.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If he committed felonies, you should let Nancy know ASAP.  She left them out of the articles.

If? Is there any doubt he wrote those checks or doubt about the purpose of the payment?

[hobbes2702 13049]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

Why if? We do know. It’s a fucking fact.

[jimmyjazz 46001]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why if? We do know. It’s a fucking fact.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think Trump committed a felony.  It's a fair baseline question (except for the fact that he'll probably lie).

[hookemATL 11803]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He'll probably answer.  It will just be a lie or an obfuscation.

Fuckboi gonna fuckboi

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

He also voluntarily wound up his sham charity he and his children abused in violation of state and federal law. The President of the United States is barred from running a charity in NY. 

[formermav43 4606]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

That’s not what I’m referring to, this is the first time there has been any - as in a single vote of - bipartisan support.  To me that’s closer than the likely one vote difference compared to Johnson.

I don’t know about that. Johnson is a unique case since he didn’t really have a party to speak of at the time-he was a Democrat, but ran with Lincoln on the “National Union” ticket in 1864. And in the aftermath of the war, only 10 out of 54 Senators were Democrats, if you could still call that his party.

It took 10 Republicans breaking from their party to acquit him. I’d say that’s closer, in my opinion.

[Pasken 1309]

Man, if we could have held on to that Florida senate seat last year and if Beto would have one we would at least have had witnesses and majority guilty verdicts.

[BLKNSTY 289]

 

lol didn’t take long




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think Trump committed a felony.  It's a fair baseline question (except for the fact that he'll probably lie).

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

[Skyline 325]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This President committed felonies while in the White House and no one gave a shit (writing checks to pay Cohen back for hush money covering up his affair with a porn star was a violation of federal election laws).
 

This President regularly abuses his office to personally profit, and not one elected GOP official gives a shit.

This President has abused the clearance and top secret classification process at an alarming rate and not one elected GOP official gives a shit.

This President, without authority, withheld Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation into the Bidens. And that’s apparently A-OK. 
 

Nothing matters. Only power matters. 

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Skyline said:

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

Obama also put kids in the same facilities.  I guess he was just a little bit pregnant though.

[4th&Five 41571]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

Yeah. It’s Schiff and Pelosi. Not the republicans voting against witnesses in a fucking trial. Way to go, detective. 

[hayden_horn 11364]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I honestly do not know enough about the facts or law on that.  If it is a felony and he was guilty, he should be impeached for it.

Why did the Democrats not include that in the articles if it was a felony?  That seems like a no brainer.  Were Schiff and Pelosi covering for him or something?

lulz, the old feigned ignorance defense. 

followed up with:

just.

asking.

questions.

so transparent.

[jimmyjazz 46001]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Obama also put kids in the same facilities.  I guess he was just a little bit pregnant though.

As a followup, I dare you to tell me the difference between Obama's policies and Trump's regarding children being detained at the border.

You seriously go out of your way to make this man look as good as possible.  That reflects horribly on you.  The truth is a great defense -- try it sometime.

[DDD Dad 14346]

20 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Blaming Dems for GOP abdicating all integrity sure is rich

I'm not blaming them for the GOP's conduct.  I'm merely noting that their actions and statements gave the GOP tremendous fodder to support their similarly (in type although far more egregious in scale) unjustified arguments against removal.

Both sides came across as hypocritical when their prior positions were presented (Lindsay Graham arguing that if a President does something that hurts somebody else he should be impeached, while Schumer and Nadler both made arguments against moving forward with an impeachment without bipartisan support).

To not see that the Clinton impeachment paved the way for the current outcome is myopic.

[workswithseed 2109]

On 2/4/2020 at 9:25 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

the only farce in this whole shitshow has been on the R side. there is no disagreeing. the R's have gaslit the fuck out this country so most rubes don't know which end is up. But those of us with half a brain see through the bullshit. The R's stonewalled this entire process and so sure, to the dumbass masses, it looks like it was a sham and a farce.

>

On 2/4/2020 at 5:13 AM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Every accusation is a confession.  Every. Single. Time.  It's truly unbelievable.

It's true, every accusation is a confession.

[DDD Dad 14346]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Manchin a yes. Dems hold the line +1

This actually surprises me.  Good on him.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

Yeah. It’s Schiff and Pelosi. Not the republicans voting against witnesses in a fucking trial. Way to go, detective. 

Republicans did not control the articles of impeachment nor decide which witnesses to call before the house.  Schiff and Nancy did.  I am genuinely curious why, if this felony occurred, did Nancy and Adam not include them as one of the articles of impeachment?

[Mo Horn 8852]

So Romney voted guilty on the first but not guilty on the 2nd. 

[Chuckie Finster 22702]

9 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

 

lol didn’t take long




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yesterday: Government is a serious place and class and decorum must be followed at all times.  Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed of her outburst.

Today: MITT ROMNEY IS A POOOOSSAAAYYYYYYY 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 minute ago, Mo Horn said:

So Romney voted guilty on the first but not guilty on the 2nd. 

That’s dumb. Obstruction of Congress was the easiest one

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

That’s dumb. Obstruction of Congress was the easiest one

Because that one is, of the two, just far more questionable.

[troph 24895]

17 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t know about that. Johnson is a unique case since he didn’t really have a party to speak of at the time-he was a Democrat, but ran with Lincoln on the “National Union” ticket in 1864. And in the aftermath of the war, only 10 out of 54 Senators were Democrats, if you could still call that his party.

It took 10 Republicans breaking from their party to acquit him. I’d say that’s closer, in my opinion.

after further consideration, I agree actually.

 

still I'm happy with this outcome, on a realistic basis.  

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Because that one is, of the two, just far more questionable.

Now you’re obviously trolling. 

[Brisketexan 105180]

13 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

 

lol didn’t take long




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But...but.... DECORUM!!!!

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

11 minutes ago, Skyline said:

Despite all that, the biggest sticking point for me is that the president put human beings in cages, including children and there was zero impact on him from that. And now he's having his admin remove the documentation, and surprise surprise, zero impact. 

This, absolutely this. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Now you’re obviously trolling. 

No.  There are serious separation of powers issue on that.  I think of the two, that one was by far the weakest claim as to whether obstruction of congress can be a high crime or misdemeanor without first securing a judicial ruling on the testimony or documents sought.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let me ask you a question:  if you knew Donald Trump had committed a felony while in office (or otherwise), would you care?

I fucking dare you to answer the question.

You know the answer. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

38 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

He also engaged in witness tampering.

I supported Clinton's impeachment and removal as well.

The Democrats paved the way for the result here by choosing to keep their popular president instead of make a tough decision like Romney.

I supported Clinton’s impeachment and removal as well. But of course I was young 20 something and a total ignorant dumbass back then. He did commit a crime lying under oath about getting his dick sucked. That is not a high crime though. 
 

What Mitt Romney did today took balls and may actually save the senate itself. His speech shows how cowardly guys like Lamar Alexander and the rest of the Republican turds are acting. They know trump is guilty and abused his office. For political reasons and of course the almighty dollar, they let him get away with it. 
 

I will raise a glass to Mitt Romney tonight. 

[formermav43 4606]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

after further consideration, I agree actually.

 

still I'm happy with this outcome, on a realistic basis.  

 

Hey, a changed mind on this board! Miracles CAN happen!

[Chad Fuck 17698]

To think Romney was the GOP's nominated candidate at one time, and now he's on an island.

Cue the SNL Gilligan's Island sketch where only 2% of their millennial viewership will get the the reference.

[Captainant 27690]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

No.  There are serious separation of powers issue on that.  I think of the two, that one was by far the weakest claim as to whether obstruction of congress can be a high crime or misdemeanor without first securing a judicial ruling on the testimony or documents sought.

So you think a co-equal branch of government exercising constitutionally mandated oversight should be constrained by abuse of the appellate court system to table an investigation for an indeterminate period of time?

In your world, does Congress not have a constitutional mandate to oversight? To inform the public and solicit consent for their actions? Or is it just divine rule to the unitary executive?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Captainant said:

So you think a co-equal branch of government exercising constitutionally mandated oversight should be constrained by abuse of the appellate court system to table an investigation for an indeterminate period of time?

In your world, does Congress not have a constitutional mandate to oversight? To inform the public and solicit consent for their actions? Or is it just divine rule to the unitary executive?

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

[Michael Knight 12989]

our long national nightmare is over, praise be to trump and his perfect calls

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Happy acquittal day lads!

[clapclapclap 9000]

[Captainant 27690]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

Trump didn't claim executive privilege in court. He refused to comply. 

And you didn't answer my question: should a president be allowed to table any investigation for any period of time by abusing the appellate courts? There's been subpoenas churning through the courts for almost a year, oversight stops being effective when you can delay actual transparency for years and then destroy the evidence in the interim. 

[TexArcher 37989]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Happy acquittal day lads!

I hope a bird shits on you.

[Amos Moses 795]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

If only said privilege was actually asserted.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

I hope a bird shits on you.

In his mouth.

[po elvis 2076]

"Using their power to try and affect a Presidential election" 

CNN - guilty as charged

House Democrats - guilty as charged

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46001]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They do have that right.  They do not have the right to get to determine what and what is not covered by executive privilege.  That is for the courts.

I think it's a reasonable position to believe that what is covered by executive privilege is not "everything".  Once again, you bob and weave and fail to take a stand for what is right.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Captainant said:

Trump didn't claim executive privilege in court. He refused to comply. 

And you didn't answer my question: should a president be allowed to table any investigation for any period of time by abusing the appellate courts? There's been subpoenas churning through the courts for almost a year, oversight stops being effective when you can delay actual transparency for years and then destroy the evidence in the interim. 

You claim executive privilege when you resist producing testimony or witnesses.  That is all the needs to be done.  The party then seeking the information must seek redress in the courts.  So yeah, he did not claim executive privilege in court.  Because the democrats decided not to seek redress in the courts.

Pretty much how discovery works for most privileges.  You claim privilege.  Other side either sets the issue for hearing in a court.  Or the privilege stands. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's a reasonable position to believe that what is covered by executive privilege is not "everything".  Once again, you bob and weave and fail to take a stand for what is right.

Whatever it is, the requesting party is not the arbiter of privilege.  That's not how that shit works.  If Trump was abusing executive privilege, challenge it in court and move for sanctions.

[staboner 4984]

lol. party on america. the look is really fucking bad from over here. but you know that.

Every day the knife is put deeper into what we, and most of the world, once believed in. We all know its coming but damn if it ain't sad. 

Hopefully more of you wake up to the war you are in. Nothing matters. The man in the black pajamas is working overtime to remove your say in governance. The Sacks and Tahoes of the world actually want this. Do you get that yet? 

While it is a a war we appreciate you not using nukes. thanks, rest of civilized world. Have a good fucking day my Gs

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It wasn’t that great of a run for America. 

[jimmyjazz 46001]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Whatever it is, the requesting party is not the arbiter of privilege.  That's not how that shit works.  If Trump was abusing executive privilege, challenge it in court and move for sanctions.

Challenge it in court during an election year?  Wait, I thought everything was off limits BECAUSE it's an election year?

Fuck you and fuck Trump.  You don't have the best interest of this country at heart and you should pray to God this doesn't go where it's clearly headed.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Challenge it in court during an election year?  Wait, I thought everything was off limits BECAUSE it's an election year?

Fuck you and fuck Trump.  You don't have the best interest of this country at heart and you should pray to God this doesn't go where it's clearly headed.

Hysterics.