Impeachment not going so well?

[gunthernehmen]

You've been here much too long to be surprised.

Fine. Can we make fun of his bug eyes, then? Or the uncanny resemblance his name has to an STD?

 

[Dumpington]

jomar writes: "Wow, look at you making fun of someone’s medical condition."

The "medical condition" in the film "Beetlejuice" was called "death" - have you seriously never watched that film?

YDB95 writes: "You've been here much too long to be surprised."

I'm surprised that he's never seen that one!

gunthernehmen writes: "Can we make fun of his bug eyes, then? Or the uncanny resemblance his name has to an STD?"

Are they now saying that Adam Schiff's weird face is the result of a medical condition that we aren't allowed to address?

https://i.imgflip.com/26ah44.jpg - (The "underinflated" Adam Schiff?)

https://i.imgflip.com/3grd1y.jpg - (THIS is how Adam Schiff will be remembered!)

 

[gunthernehmen]

jomar writes: "Wow, look at you making fun of someone’s medical condition."

The "medical condition" in the film "Beetlejuice" was called "death" - have you seriously never watched that film?

YDB95 writes: "You've been here much too long to be surprised."

I'm surprised that he's never seen that one!

gunthernehmen writes: "Can we make fun of his bug eyes, then? Or the uncanny resemblance his name has to an STD?"

Are they now saying that Adam Schiff's weird face is the result of a medical condition that we aren't allowed to address?

https://i.imgflip.com/26ah44.jpg - (The "underinflated" Adam Schiff?)

https://i.imgflip.com/3grd1y.jpg - (THIS is how Adam Schiff will be remembered!)

We make fun of Hillary's appearance and that's a function of her mental illnesses.

Google says CP sometimes causes eyesight problems but nothing about bug eyes.

This suggests jomar has some sort of inside information on old Bug Eyes, which makes his disclosure a crime.

I thereby impeach jomar for low crimes and missed da'meanings.

 

[jomar]

You've been here much too long to be surprised.

That’s certainly true.

 

[jomar]

We make fun of Hillary's appearance and that's a function of her mental illnesses.

Google says CP sometimes causes eyesight problems but nothing about bug eyes.

This suggests jomar has some sort of inside information on old Bug Eyes, which makes his disclosure a crime.

I thereby impeach jomar for low crimes and missed da'meanings.

The CP was not related to bug eyes, but simply a reference to Trump mocking a reporter with CP, which Dumpy is ok with.

As far as my impeachment...No Due Process, wahhhh!

 

[gunthernehmen]

As far as my impeachment...No Due Process, wahhhh!

If there's one thing Pelosi has shown us, you don't have to commit a crime to be impeached.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The CP was not related to bug eyes, but simply a reference to Trump mocking a reporter with CP, which Dumpy is ok with. !

So also not related in any way to making fun of old bug eyes for his pencil neck. Got it.

 

[jaF0]

If there's one thing Pelosi has shown us, you don't have to commit a crime to be impeached.

"(Lindsay) Graham told reporters he still believes impeachment does not need to be a crime from a strictly legal perspective, though impeaching a president without alleging a crime means those seeking to remove a sitting president need to grapple with both matters of law and matters of politics.

“So this is where maybe me and [Trump attorney Alan] Dershowitz will depart. I believe that high crimes and misdemeanors can literally be anything people want it to be. It’s a vague term and the problem is when there’s no statutory violation, it becomes more political.

“This will be the first impeachment where there’s no crime alleged. Nixon was involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up a burglary and to pay people off. Clinton, whether you agreed with it or not, what he did — lost his law license and got disbarred for five years. So in this case there is no statutory crime. They’re making the argument that you can abuse power without criminal misconduct. I actually agree with that conception, but the problem is that when you do that, you run into all the arguments we’re making here.”"

https://www.courthousenews.com/heard-in-the-halls-impeachment-trial-scenes-2/

 

[gunthernehmen]

I believe that high crimes and misdemeanors can literally be anything people want it to be.

That's when it becomes a coup.

 

[jaF0]

So now you're saying Graham is part of your 'coup theory'?

 

[gunthernehmen]

So now you're saying Graham is part of your 'coup theory'?

No, you are. I said Pelosi. And Schiff for Brains, of course.

 

[Dumpington]

Michael Goodwin writes about the senate impeachment trial in the New York Post:

Long before Democrats finished making their marathon impeachment case Friday night, momentum had deserted them. The loops of repetition had gone from annoying to unbearable and the wild assertions got even wilder as their talk, talk, talk became a trial of its own. And despite the historic nature of this event, the public has voted by staying away. Many gallery seats sat empty, a fact that recalls a gem from the late Yogi Berra that “If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s gonna stop them.”

Still, even a fraudulent impeachment is not a laughing matter - and until the Senate votes, nothing is guaranteed. To that end, President Trump’s team finally got their first turn at bat Saturday and delivered several big hits in a strong start. They began with something Trump has said repeatedly: “Read the transcript and you’ll see exactly what it is.” Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, told senators that the transcript of the president’s call with the president of Ukraine on July 25th “is the best evidence” that Trump “did absolutely nothing wrong.”

He then cited passage after passage undercutting the Dems’ charge of a quid pro quo involving American military aid in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden & the Ukraine. It was a clear argument that was followed by three more Trump lawyers who stuck to his theme — go on offense and put the motive and conduct of the impeachers on trial.

"Go on offense and put the motive and conduct of the impeachers on trial!"

The aim isn’t just to create reasonable doubt - its to demolish the entire case against the president and expose lead prosecutor Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pure partisans trying to overturn the 2016 election and steal the next one. Saturday’s session lasted just two hours, yet it was effective in part because it was concise.

Another contrast is that the president’s team did not INSULT the senators - first, with Rep. Jerry Nadler’s foolish charge that a vote against additional witnesses would amount to a “cover-up” of crimes and a “treacherous” decision. And the second insult being Schiff’s reference to a threat allegedly made by the White House that any defecting GOP senator would find that “your head will be on a pike.”

Schiff said he wasn’t sure if that CBS story was true, but he used it anyway, which resulted in the White House and senators immediately denying it. “I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration,” said Susan Collins of Maine, whose vote might be in play. Another, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said Schiff “lost me” with the comment.

Impeachment is clearly a PURELY PARTISAN action in the House, and it's going to remain PURELY PARTISAN in the U.S. Senate, as well! The Democrats have once again spent millions of taxpayer-dollars on another clown-show COUP-ATTEMPT that's failed miserably!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Impeachment is clearly a PURELY PARTISAN action in the House, and it's going to remain PURELY PARTISAN in the U.S. Senate, as well! The Democrats have once again spent millions of taxpayer-dollars on another clown-show COUP-ATTEMPT that's failed miserably!

After a while, the Impeachment will be (properly) thrown out with the garbage and Trump will continue to be our President for around 5 more years.

But the Democrat Party did learn an important lesson through this and it's likely to spark an ACTUAL civil war in our lifetimes.

They figured out that if they control BOTH sides, House and Senate and they don't like the President, they can simply override the People and vote him out.

Of course that would leave them with President Pence (who really might BE the guy the Democrat Party claims Trump is), but that won't be true when they pull this stunt again.

And even if they do, they just impeach the next one and one of their own is President.

So watch. It might take a few years, but inside of 15 years, probably much less, the Dems will pull this again, on even flimsier grounds. And if it works, and the OTHER half of the country realizes "gee it really WAS a coup!", there will be bloodshed.

 

[jaF0]

Senate should remove Trump, majority of independent voters say in Fox News poll
USA Today|2 hours ago
Half of registered voters and a majority of independents think the Senate should convict President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial and remove him from office, according to a Fox News poll released Sunday.

 

[Dumpington]

gunthernehmen writes: "They figured out that if they control BOTH sides, House and Senate and they don't like the President, they can simply override the People and vote him out."

A failed impeachment effort that's 100% PARTISAN is going to backfire on the party that attempts it, as the American voters do NOT like being taken for fools, and this current failed impeachment/coup-attempt is costing taxpayers millions of dollars! This fiasco is going to cost Nancy Pelosi's party dozens of House seats, and it very may well hurt Democrats in the U.S. Senate, as well!

The House Democrats promised their supporters that they would impeach Trump and remove him from office, and screwing this up (like they're doing) is NO WAY going to get them votes in 2020, especially as they've already spent $30-million on the failed Mueller investigation, which ALSO promised to end the Trump presidency!

Of course, Pelosi KNEW that the U.S. Senate would never follow her lead, and was simply hoping that maybe an impeachment trial might hurt Trump in November of 2020, but that's HIGHLY UNLIKELY with Trump's enormously successful management of our economy, trade talks, and building of the border wall! He's keeping ALL of his promises, including major changes in the judiciary, ALL of which is pumping-up his base! And all that the Dems have to say in response is: "we hate Trump!" - and that's NOT a winning strategy!

 

[YDB95]

But the Democrat Party did learn an important lesson through this and it's likely to spark an ACTUAL civil war in our lifetimes.

It ain't the supporters of the Democratic Party that have been openly predicting civil war if we don't leave Trump alone to continue his reign of error.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "It ain't the supporters of the Democratic Party that have been openly predicting civil war if we don't leave Trump alone to continue his reign of error."

Conservatives have the U.S. military on their side. Republicans also have most of the privately-owned firearms in this nation.

In a civil war, the Democrats could count on Antifa, Muslims, Greta Thunberg, #BlackLivesMatter, Colin Kaepernick, Planned Parenthood, Jussie Smollett, the Hollywood-left, Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, and all of those transgendered guys who want to compete in women's athletics to fight on their behalf.

No, I don't think there's going to be another civil war in America. In the last one, the G.O.P. won and the Democrats were forced to free all of their slaves.

 

[gunthernehmen]

A failed impeachment effort that's 100% PARTISAN is going to backfire on the party that attempts it, as the American voters do NOT like being taken for fools

If the Democrat Party leadership had three brain cells between them, they would not have run the hag against Trump.

They WILL try this again, probably against Trump in his next term, or if he somehow loses to Bernie, whatever non Democrat president we get in 2024.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It ain't the supporters of the Democratic Party that have been openly predicting civil war if we don't leave Trump alone to continue his reign of error.

EVERY group has some loud mouths. NOBODY on the right wants a war. We're far too busy working our jobs, supporting our families and paying our mortgages.

There was a big 2A rally the other day in Virginia. Something like 70k people showed up with everything from pistols to frigging bazookas. No burned out cars. No turned over police cars. One arrest. Some girl wouldn't take her mask off (turns out it's actually illegal to wear a mask in Virginia. Who knew?)

Compare that to almost any left wing rally in recent memory.

 

[YDB95]

I guess you do have a point in that the Republicans' 100% PARTISAN impeachment backfired on them in 1998. But there's no evidence of a backlash this time, with even Fox News admitting the public is against Trump by a substantial margin.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I guess you do have a point in that the Republicans' 100% PARTISAN impeachment backfired on them in 1998. But there's no evidence of a backlash this time, with even Fox News admitting the public is against Trump by a substantial margin.

You must be remembering a different President Clinton.

The one I remember, about 20% of the Republican Senators voted NOT GUILTY.

That's hardly 100% partisan.

The other important distinction between the two Impeachments is, Clinton really DID commit a crime, lying to Congress. Whereas neither of the articles against Trump actually allege a crime.

 

[YDB95]

The other important distinction between the two Impeachments is, Clinton really DID commit a crime, lying to Congress.

Not according to the Republican Senate that acquitted him. Under the guidelines agreed to by both sides earlier on in the investigation, Clinton's answers were legally accurate. Granted, he did lie in the "that woman" speech, but that wasn't to Congress.

Whereas neither of the articles against Trump actually allege a crime.

I don't suppose it's even worth asking where you got that from? Certainly not from the articles themselves.

 

[gunthernehmen]

the Republicans' 100% PARTISAN impeachment

the Republican Senate that acquitted him

Would you make up your MIND, already?

As for the current impeachment, did you even READ it?

 

[YDB95]

Would you make up your MIND, already?

Would you look up the definition of impeachment already? It refers only to the House passing the articles of impeachment. In both cases, a few members of the opposition party voted against their party.

And yes, I read the articles of impeachment. I sincerely doubt you did.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Would you look up the definition of impeachment already? It refers only to the House passing the articles of impeachment. In both cases, a few members of the opposition party voted against their party.

And yes, I read the articles of impeachment. I sincerely doubt you did.

One of the requirements for an impeachment to result in a conviction is for there to have been a crime that the accused actually committed.

I've read them. Although in all honesty I fell asleep twice.