Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bahahaha

 

Search “Donald Trump f bomb” at YouTube and see how many hits you get. No Trumpkin gets to pretend they’re bothered by foul language. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, B00M said:

I thought that this morning but I'm choosing to believe now. How can the Rs not desperately want Trump out of their lives? 

There isn't a spine to be had in the Rep Senate.  You might get 4 or 5 to convict but no more.  Can't piss off the morons.   

Posted (edited)

It's not strictly relevant, but 18 USC 2101 defines the federal crime of inciting a riot.

Quote

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1)
to incite a riot; or
(2)
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3)
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4)
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Note that you don't have to be the sole proximate cause of a riot, just contribute to it in the enumerated ways. So this notion that certain groups were planning to riot anyway is bullshit.  Moreover, receiving encouragement from the POTUS insured that those turds would go through with it and think that they would be protected from their crimes.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

There isn't a spine to be had in the Rep Senate.  You might get 4 or 5 to convict but no more.  Can't piss off the morons.   

A lot (all?) of these R senators are already extremely wealthy. They don't NEED to be reelected. Think long term about the precedent. Fear of violence against their families is about the only reason I can come up with not to convict. But it's short sighted and selfish. Trump shit on all of them and their families from day 1. Stop humiliating yourself and the few principled conservatives left and turn on the mother fucker already. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

dmes are doing a good job showing how the actual framers exercised impeachment of former officials. i can't see a way around that. these are some of the same men who put pen to paper for the constitution. 

Well not only that, but like I said, the Walter Nixon case definitively refuted the GOP argument fully 27 years before it was advanced. As Rehnquist put it, “we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” 

In order for this trial to lack constitutionality, there has to be a textual limit on that exact authority, and that limit has to have been demonstrated to have been exceeded.

There isn’t. It doesn’t exist. It’s make believe. Pretend. All this shit the GOP is pumping out about this amounts to bells and whistles, colors and lights, smoke and mirrors, partisan feelings and emotions...and pretty much everything else that just simply doesn’t matter when examining the constitution, law and order, and really anything meaningful in life itself.

They are waving their hands around, stomping their feet and yelling as loudly as they can, in the words of Tom Tucker, “Pay attention to me! I'm trying to ruin you!”

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, B00M said:

A lot (all?) of these R senators are already extremely wealthy. They don't NEED to be reelected. Think long term about the precedent. Fear of violence against their families is about the only reason I can come up with not to convict. But it's short sighted and selfish. Trump shit on all of them and their families from day 1. Stop humiliating yourself and the few principled conservatives left and turn on the mother fucker already. 

The fact that the "jury" is composed of the co-conspirators makes the whole thing bizarre. Trying to imagine a prosecutor asking a jury of 12 to convict the defendant when the getaway driver and 2 accomplices are sitting in the jury.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Yes, you guys ... be honest!  Let he who has not incited an insurrection in which people were killed cast the first stone!
 

 

Except he *literally* got a mulligan. This is the second impeachment trial, my dude.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah Castor, I do kind of want retribution.

I reject his contention. He’s trying to frame the issue as being “oh these hysterical democrats are just out for blood.” This is textbook gaslighting 

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 As Rehnquist put it, “we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” 

 


Rehnquist was a liberal, deep state plant who was nominated by the deep state to serve at its discretion!

Posted

This guy is a fucking um, er wreck. Of course the lead defense attorney for trump is a long term prosecutor... Not the time for comedy and we don't give a flying fuck about your childhood story. 

Posted

Really trying to be objective and listen to this guy, but I could put on a better opening myself.

 

"This is an aside..." Dude your whole speech is an aside.

Posted
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

What's your point, Counselor?

Well, he's all over the place with his speech so he sounds like Trump.   And Trumpkins like that Trump sounds like them so, we're fucked.

Posted
1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

what in the everlovingfuck get on with it bitch!  5 minutes on senators r specialz

 

he's seconds away from telling them they have huge cocks 

  • Haha 1
Posted

This is the other side is obviously right and I have no cogent legal argument so I’ll ramble and suck up so as not to just concede we have no argument that doesn’t involve me lying.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

This is the other side is obviously right and I have no cogent legal argument so I’ll ramble and suck up so as not to just concede we have no argument that doesn’t involve me lying.

This is the best explanation.  Or, this guy is a moron.  Tough to decide.



×
×
  • Create New...