trump Inpeachment...............

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's a god damn lie Cred! Trump wouldn't say apples are good for you because they aren't deep fried or cooked in grease.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also apologies for typing this out in your quote Cred, I don't lump you in with people like sdskins or Chico, who this post is meant for.







TL;DR: The Constitution never took into account the fact that Republicans would prioritize protecting the party and the President over their Constitutionally obligated duty to act as an impartial juror. And if the Constitution means that little to you guys, rip that shit up and let's go to war.

My preview tldr: an impartial juror who presumes innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would by all merits acquit trump

It is ok to lump me in with Chico and sdskins, I said I won't have a melt down if the Senate voted to strip Trump, not that I agree that all these trumped up claims have anything close to what the founders had in mind for impeachment of a duly elcted President. It isn't mental gymnastics to read posts like that of G1, who started an impeachment thread("when is enough enough") in the first few months of Trump's term, or punch's tirades, to understand that the dems (and faux republicans) have been wanting some way to get Trump out of office, and that they will blow out of proportion any action in order to make that happen.

On the other hand if Reagan was the teflon president, because nothing the dems threw at him stuck (iran contra would have been impeachment fodder nowadays) Trump is the static cling president because whatever he rubs up against is sure to leaves him looking dirty. He hasn't done anything togive people reason to presume he is innocent even that is where all our justice is supposed to stem from.

You said that any court in the land would convict him because of the 8 witness testimonials and some circumstantial funds management. BUT I say that in a real court, a competent defense attorney would get the 8 witnesses testimony thrown out as hearsay, the gao report would be refuted by the equally valid finding of the omb report and if the presumption of innocence is applied, non-biased jurors would find that there is reasonable doubt and acquit.

The senate is likely going to acquit, or not strip, him because you aren't going to get 20 republican senators to change. And the framers chose to set it at 2/3s because removing a sitting president isnt supposed to be easy, it should be based on strong national consensus. If there is one thing this country does NOT have, it is a strong national consensus on anything in the political realm.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk