Trump Keeps On Winning

[Ann_Tagonist]

You gotta be careful with your facts. Otherwise, Adre will be saying that this isn't a "criminal trial" and Constitutional Rights don't apply at all.

Nice try, but impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, it’s a political act. If it were, the head of this “jury” would have been dismissed. And there would be witnesses.

*snerk*

 

[HisArpy]

Nice try, but impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, it’s a political act. If it were, the head of this “jury” would have been dismissed. And there would be witnesses.

Called it!

#49

 

[Rightguide]

Nice try, but impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, it’s a political act. If it were, the head of this “jury” would have been dismissed. And there would be witnesses.

The Constitution is the law of the land, Congress cannot construct a process outside of its legal structure, numb nuts.

 

[Adre]

I saw your comment, Matlock. Gross misstatements of fact still require correction, don’t they, counselor?

 

[Rightguide]

Called it!

#49

^^^
Sheer prescience.

 

[Adre]

Nothing you say makes this a criminal prosecution.

 

[Rightguide]

I saw your comment, Matlock. Gross misstatements of fact still require correction, don’t they, counselor?

There isn't enough space on Lit to list all of "your" gross misstatements of fact.

 

[HisArpy]

The Constitution is the law of the land, Congress cannot construct a process outside of its legal structure, numb nuts.

Laws don't apply whenever the progressives want something from the judiciary. They just create "new" procedures "in the name of fairness" that somehow never seem to be fair to the accused or anyone else for that matter.

Please note the similarity between the idea that impeachment is not a "criminal trial" so the rules that are already established don't apply and the stated desire to "pack the Supreme Court" to prevent conservatives from stopping the advancement of progress.

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing you say makes this a criminal prosecution.

If it is outside the Constitution it is null and void.

 

[Adre]

There isn't enough space on Lit to list all of "your" gross misstatements of fact.

You should stick to sniffing turds in your punch bowl, vetty.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Nothing you say makes this a criminal prosecution.

Sure. No crime.

 

[HisArpy]

Nothing you say makes this a criminal prosecution.

A criminal trial is a legal procedure in which a legal team tries to provide enough evidence to convict an accused person of a crime...

https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-criminal-trial.htm

So, what were you saying again?

 

[Adre]

Laws don't apply whenever the progressives want something from the judiciary. They just create "new" procedures "in the name of fairness" that somehow never seem to be fair to the accused or anyone else for that matter.

Please note the similarity between the idea that impeachment is not a "criminal trial" so the rules that are already established don't apply and the stated desire to "pack the Supreme Court" to prevent conservatives from stopping the advancement of progress.

So is it fair to state that the accused will be acquitted before the “trial” even begins, Matlock?

 

[Adre]

So, what were you saying again?

Is it called a criminal trial in the Constitution, counselor?

(Hint: no, it’s called impeachment,)

 

[Adre]

Why did the founding fathers call it impeachment?

(Hint: to distinguish it from a criminal trial.)

 

[HisArpy]

So is it fair to state that the accused will be acquitted before the “trial” even begins, Matlock?

I say it all the time. And I'm often right.

You see, people aren't stupid. They get to watch what's happening and are allowed to form their own opinions on the validity of the events.

Most senators understand EXACTLY what the impeachment is about. AND, under the established rules of the Senate, they can say that the evidence presented so far is insufficient to result in a guilty verdict.

And there's not one damned thing you can do about it except...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kR7oMQMzy1U/hqdefault.jpg

Which makes me...

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/zuR_Gf8xAQldi6IzR70-OhjYIE8/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2013/05/03/962/n/1922243/d7ed39a394b230bd_d7716786b2b911e2a49722000aaa05c4_7/i/Check-out-big-grin.jpg

Enjoy the bitter taste in your mouth.

 

[Rightguide]

You should stick to sniffing turds in your punch bowl, vetty.

You should have your head examined, your paranoia in regard to seeing "vetty" everywhere is a symptom of paranoid personality disorder and/or paranoid schizophrenia. Typical Democrat basket case.

 

[Rightguide]

I say it all the time. And I'm often right.

You see, people aren't stupid. They get to watch what's happening and are allowed to form their own opinions on the validity of the events.

Most senators understand EXACTLY what the impeachment is about. AND, under the established rules of the Senate, they can say that the evidence presented so far is insufficient to result in a guilty verdict.

And there's not one damned thing you can do about it except...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kR7oMQMzy1U/hqdefault.jpg

Which makes me...

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/zuR_Gf8xAQldi6IzR70-OhjYIE8/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2013/05/03/962/n/1922243/d7ed39a394b230bd_d7716786b2b911e2a49722000aaa05c4_7/i/Check-out-big-grin.jpg

Enjoy the bitter taste in your mouth.

LOL! That deserves at least a Mutley.

 

[Adre]

I say it all the time. And I'm often right.
.

When you’re sitting on a jury?

(Because remember, according to you this is a criminal trial.)

 

[HisArpy]

Why did the founding fathers call it impeachment?

(Hint: to distinguish it from a criminal trial.)

It's called "impeachment" because that's the word that is defined to mean:

Definition of impeach

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb
1 : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

THE PROCESS is actually stated in the Constitution. The second part of the process, after the articles of Impeachment are transmitted, is to be a "trial in the Senate". THE BASIS for the Articles and the evidence supporting those Articles are argued and presented during the "trial in the Senate". The ONLY basis for such Articles and trial are "Treason, Bribery, High CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS". You know, the ones that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. the ones that are actually CRIMES and which fall under the definition given above.

So, if you are going to be "tried" on the basis of "being charged with a crime or misdemeanor" I would think that even a moron like you would understand that it's a "criminal trial".

But noooooooooo........................... not you. You INSIST that it's "purely political" even though those particular words, or any iteration of them, don't appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution.

 

[HisArpy]

When you’re sitting on a jury?

(Because remember, according to you this is a criminal trial.)

dudly, anyone can stand up and say "not guilty" at any time. And remember, these are US Senators, not "jurors". McConnell is also not a "juror", he's the Majority Leader of the United States Senate.

If he wants to stand up in front of a camera or even on the Senate floor and say that the President isn't going to be removed from office, HE IS ALLOWED TO DO SO.

And, again, there's not one dam thing you can do about it.

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/zuR_Gf8xAQldi6IzR70-OhjYIE8/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2013/05/03/962/n/1922243/d7ed39a394b230bd_d7716786b2b911e2a49722000aaa05c4_7/i/Check-out-big-grin.jpg

 

[Rightguide]

It's called "impeachment" because that's the word that is defined to mean:



THE PROCESS is actually stated in the Constitution. The second part of the process, after the articles of Impeachment are transmitted, is to be a "trial in the Senate". THE BASIS for the Articles and the evidence supporting those Articles are argued and presented during the "trial in the Senate". The ONLY basis for such Articles and trial are "Treason, Bribery, High CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS". You know, the ones that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. the ones that are actually CRIMES and which fall under the definition given above.

So, if you are going to be "tried" on the basis of "being charged with a crime or misdemeanor" I would think that even a moron like you would understand that it's a "criminal trial".

But noooooooooo........................... not you. You INSIST that it's "purely political" even though those particular words, or any iteration of them, don't appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution.

So sad to see Adre depend on Alisyn Camerota, Brian Stelter, and Chuck Todd for his constitution and legal advice. The three absolutely dumbest people on TV.

 

[HisArpy]

So sad to see Adre depend on Alisyn Camerota, Brian Stelter, and Chuck Todd for his constitution and legal advice. The three absolutely dumbest people on TV.

He's basically gone over to the "cancel culture" side. The one where if they don't like something, they just make up new definitions to old words and proclaim someone guilty of something or other.

The worst part is that he (and they) don't understand that they've LOST the social change gambit.

To change society you need >50% of the entire population to agree with you. If you don't have that, what you have is equal division. Equal division isn't enough to "require" the rest of society to change because they want to "require" YOU to knock off the crap.

Look back throughout history. Womens' suffrage, equal rights, emancipation, those are all examples of how our society changed because a majority realized that the change was needed.

Right now, the whiner progressives don't have the buying power. At best they've got the constantly vocal 35% solidly on their side and 15% who are willing to switch sides to avoid any conflicts. Meanwhile there is 50% of the nation who aren't willing to go along with their fruity ideas. They lost.

 

[Adre]

He's basically gone over to the "cancel culture" side. The one where if they don't like something, they just make up new definitions to old words and proclaim someone guilty of something or other.

The worst part is that he (and they) don't understand that they've LOST the social change gambit.

To change society you need >50% of the entire population to agree with you. If you don't have that, what you have is equal division. Equal division isn't enough to "require" the rest of society to change because they want to "require" YOU to knock off the crap.

Look back throughout history. Womens' suffrage, equal rights, emancipation, those are all examples of how our society changed because a majority realized that the change was needed.

Right now, the whiner progressives don't have the buying power. At best they've got the constantly vocal 35% solidly on their side and 15% who are willing to switch sides to avoid any conflicts. Meanwhile there is 50% of the nation who aren't willing to go along with their fruity ideas. They lost.

All this ^^^ bullshit just because you don’t get the difference between a criminal trial and a political impeachment? Take a deep breath, Matlock.

 

[Rightguide]

All this ^^^ bullshit just because you don’t get the difference between a criminal trial and a political impeachment? Take a deep breath, Matlock.

^^^^
Typical Democrat always projecting his ignorance, stupidity, and general character flaws onto others.