Order restored. Balance of power alive and well, thanks, US constitution

He’s not arguing it wasn’t partisan, he’s just stating he is ok with it.

out of 196 republicans, they couldn’t get a SINGLE one to vote for impeachment and actually had 4 democrats vote against it, one actually switched parties.

There is no argument to support this wasn’t partisan, he is just stating he supports partisan impeachments. I have to hand it the guy, he just downright admits it.

 

Well great then he should be down with a partisan acquittal.

 

APPLAUSE!!!

 

Exactly, except we don’t know yet, the acquittal vote may be bipartisan even though motion for witnesses wasn’t, which i think was great and a fair punishment for partisan nature of house proceedings.

 

The Trump Republican Party Republicans just performed the first ever in America "trial" with no witnesses, no documentary evidence, & publicly announced verdict BEFORE the trial began. Now that they've set the precedent, what's to stop them from using that same technique against anyone in America, including you, next time you are put on trial?

 

The Democratic Party and the Left are who controls the media and our institutions.

Their actions are clearly Orwellian. The media attack their enemies, i.e. Americanists and Constitutionalists, and pound their leftist msg daily.

The FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA launched an illegal attack upon their political enemy.

That's about as Orwellian as it gets

 

the senate was given a sham impeachment, that was the problem. Bolton wouldn’t have mattered so what was the point? The sham was going nowhere.

Seems to me that you just turn your head to what the house did. You talk about a publicly pre-announced verdict in senate but have no issues with the publicly pre-announced impeachment in the house? And how not a single republican supported it (out of 196!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and even 3-4 democrats opposed it? And you don’t have an issue with how it was rushed, president not given a chance to defend himself. If you supported this sham then your credibility when you voice concerns about senate, is ZERO.

This was perfect, justice served.

 

This is very simple.

Assume Bolton would’ve testified and claimed Trump told him that he wanted to freeze aid in return for ukraine looking into bidens. This would’ve made no difference because there would still be gaping holes in the argument that this is impeachable.

1. It is not a high crime, misdeamenor or akin to it
2. Has to be proven without a doubt that trump didn’t care about the VERY corrupt like actions of bidens and just wanted to hurt biden politically, now we are getting into his head
3. It becomes bolton’s words vs WH and ukraine, the supposed victim. How can we conclude there was a quid pro quo when everyone in ukraine denies it? Bolton stating trump wanted it merely shows intent, not that it actually happened. There is a lot that is discussed between a president and his advisors that doesn’t actually materialize in actions. So now we are going to remove a president from office just because he floated the idea without any evidence that it happened? Now we are getting into zelensky’s head and ignoring what he has actually stated.


This was a damn sham, everyone knows it. The house failed to garner bipartisan support in house; in fact, there was bipartisan support against it! This is damning evidence that it was a sham!

 

If I wasn't a believer I wouldn't give a tinkers damn about the oath either!

Do You Swear to tell the truth oath?

I may take the oath, but I really wont mean it when "I swear to tell the truth the hole truth and nothing but the truth" to a bunch of liars, it would just put me at a disadvantage! ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

LOL, the left is taking this loss harder and more comical then even I had anticipated.. It never gets old at how the left seem to act as if this is the very FIRST time their idiot reps in Washington over played their propaganda act while their base devoured it lock stock and barrel expecting something that everyone else with common sense knows CAN'T be accomplished without solid tangible evidence

From day one most of the logical people "Conservatives" have been saying all along is now exactly what has come to light.. Maybe it's time to listen to the Conservatives here and stay away from all those propaganda outlets that keep filling the lefts heads with fantasy nonsense hopes, dreams and bullshit! ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Ya and no liars, hearsayers and idiot Opinionator's! It was refreshing I thought ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

What a bunch of bs defection.

 

And true too The Conservatives understood this from the day it went viral, just the leftist were excited, filled with bullshit fallacy and then abruptly dropped on their back and once again knocking all the air out of them ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Wrong on several points. First, President Trump WAS given several opportunities to respond to the House investigations by testifying himself, or by sending his personal lawyers into committee to respond for him. He CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. Second, you call the House investigation a sham, yet the Senator who made the determining no vote on witnesses, said clearly himself, that the House had made a convincing case, that did prove Trump did what they charged he did. Senator Lamar Alexander, admitted the House investigation was valid, true & convincing, but he voted no because he decided Trump's misbehavior didn't warrant removal from office. Several other Trump Republicans have publicly agreed with Alexander since the vote. So your charge of the House effort being a "sham" is NOT accurate. Even many of Trump's Republicans disagree with you. I happen to disagree with these Trump Republican's final conclusions about removing Trump from office, but at least they are now admitting the House succeeded in proving their point well.

 

Will you feel the same when they brand you as guilty & rule it a waste of time & unnecessary to listen to the evidence you want to present in your own defense? That's what you're supporting here.

 

First you discredited yourself by going after senate for pre-announcing verdict but didn’t have same view on the pre-announced verdict in house. You started by digging a hole which you could’ve potentially climbed your way out of but instead you have dug a deeper hole for yourself.

You claim Lamar Alexander agrees with house verdict and thus impeachment wasn’t a sham. On the contrary, Lamar Alexander voted no to witnesses because he believes this ISN’T an impeachable offense, so he DOESN’T support impeachment. Let me remind you what impeachment is - removing a president from office, Lamar alexander is a NO to this so Lamar alexander agrees with me, impeachment was a sham and he opposes partisan nature of it. You are conflating criticism with impeachment, Alexander is ok with the former, not the latter. The house didn’t censure or just merely criticize trump, they impeached.

get it now?

 

Hopefully Lindsay Graham will follow thru and expose Biden, Kerry, et al

About the only Democrat that doesn't belong in prison these days is Tulsi Gabbard, lol

 

27,000 pages of documents presented and video taped witness testimony. Try again.

 

I don't need you to tell me what I'm supporting, I'm a big boy My opinion is honestly all I give a shlt about while yours is one I will never care about

 

That's (D)ifferent.

 

Democrats performed the first impeachment determined the day he was elected and the verdict announced before the first witness or documentary 'evidence' was produced.

 

"EVERYBODY knows the allegations against Trump are true"? Shouting does not make that silly statement a fact.

 

The more extreme you stay in your politics, the more you help divide the country. It's because Trump Republicans are so judgmental & harsh & uncompromising, that we are in the polarized situation we're in today. You guys need to mellow out.

 

A very large portion of the country disagree with you.

Why is that?

The left's answer includes stereotypical voice acting and cracks about "book l'arnin"

They might want to rethink that conclusion if they want to win another election any time in the near future.

 

Yes, evidence generated by the House. But none was generated by the Senate, & they are the ones the Constitution defines as responsible for the "trial."