Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Nobody is discovering anything. It was said time and again, this is a political process, not a criminal one.

What Trump did was wrong. Impeachable, and at the very least deserving of censure. But we screwed the pooch of this thing and possibly of this process forever. When we’re back in 3, or 5 or 11 years; with the same bullshit process I hope nobody parrots how historic the moment is.

Agreed.

The YBU fan was in error in saying we non-Repubs didn't think this process was partisan. I've said all along it has been motivated in part by politics but that the Dems have also been doing what is right or as smalltowndog put it, that Trump is "guilty as sin" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors and needs to be held to account. However, by being impatient and not going to court to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to All the President's Men prior to bringing articles of impeachment, the House Dems effed up the process. History will look very badly on Donald Trump but it won't be very favorable to Nancy Pelosi either.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

I bet you spewed your coffee everywhere when Trump said the reason he was trying to get bribes from Ukraine was because he was interested in fighting corruption.

"You have to fight fire with fire." - King John, as quoted by William Shakespeare

"You have to commit corruption in order to fight corruption." - Donald J. Trump

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UNLV2001 said:

trumps attorney Cippolini (spa?) flat out lied on the Senate floor with CJ of SCOTUS right there !!! 

Pat Cippoline is a drooling fool. When he's fully grown he'll make a great replacement for that other legal whiz, Rudy Giuliani.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SleepingGiantFan said:

Pat Cippoline is a drooling fool. When he's fully grown he'll make a great replacement for that other legal whiz, Rudy Giuliani.

Seems like the lawyers trump hires are better suite to settling traffic tickets at traffic court 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fun thing was Schiff playing video of trump saying he wanted all these people to testify...........while his gaggle of lawyers were claiming trump didn't want them to testify 

With trump it's so easy to go back and fine him saying the opposite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UNLV2001 said:

Seems like the lawyers trump hires are better suite to settling traffic tickets at traffic court 

Well, Trump had Don McGahn and although it seems to be taking forever, McGahn will eventually be required to testify and when he does, McGahn will out Mr. Grumpy on obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation. McGahn is a much better lawyer than Cippolone as evidenced by his having been a partner at Jones Day and he's also an ethical person. However, when it comes to All the President's Men, what counts is blind loyalty and Cippolone is a great yes man.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Well, Trump had Don McGahn and although it seems to be taking forever, McGahn will eventually be required to testify and when he does, McGahn will out Mr. Grumpy on obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation. McGahn is a much better lawyer than Cippolone as evidenced by his having been a partner at Jones Day and he's also an ethical person. However, when it comes to All the President's Men, what counts is blind loyalty and Cippolone is a great yes man.

Think about trumps history with attorneys he's hired 

Step 1 - Get caught doing something shady

Step 2 - Have a low end lackey 'bulldog" lawyer fire off threatening letter 

Step 3 - When opponents litigation nears a court date, make swift move via lackey lawyer to settle out of court 

trump never wants to be in discovery or put on the stand - same with this case 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

Think about trumps history with attorneys he's hired 

Step 1 - Get caught doing something shady

Step 2 - Have a low end lackey 'bulldog" lawyer fire off threatening letter 

Step 3 - When opponents litigation nears a court date, make swift move via lackey lawyer to settle out of court 

Trump has been successful in the courts because so few people have had the balls to go to trial against him. Really, his current intimidation of gutless Republicans known to hate him mirrors that of his opponents in the courts.

Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to continue his bully boy tactics. That includes once this Senate "trial" (I use the word loosely) is over. If Trump is reelected and, as I suspect is probable, he once again engages in impeachable misconduct, he absolutely should be impeached once again. To fail to do so would set the worst of precedents for our great country.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Trump has been successful in the courts because so few people have had the balls to go to trial against him. Really, his current intimidation of gutless Republicans known to hate him personally mirrors that of his opponents in the courts.

Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to continue his bully boy tactics. That includes once this Senate "trial" (I use the word loosely) is over. If Trump is reelected and, as I suspect is probable, he once again engages in impeachable misconduct, he absolutely should be impeached once again. To fail to do so would set the worst of precedents for our great country.

Not uncommon for wealthier people to use the threatening letter from lawyer to make their problems go away and it works when the offended party lacks the funds or attorney's who will go the distance on the come...........but if his threats get ignored, he goes for an out of court settlement most of the time as too much damaging information would be exposed in a trial - same patter here - trump bloviating he's done nothing wrong, says "sure let everyone tell their story", while actually blocking testimony all the while.

Only difference here is the jury is on his side and McConnell et al is going all out to protect trump - It's down to 3 or 4 GOP Senators in states that they could be defeated (Collins/Maine, Gardner/Colorado, McSally/Arizona to name some) that opt for testimony and torpedo McConnell's cover up - which could be over quickly if McConnell opts to go for a quick kill by turning out the TV's and close it to public view and roll the dice that trump's lies over the coming months win over the voters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

Ummmm....right.  The House process was completely non-partisan.  Please.  Playing politics is why this impeachment will fail, regardless of what he actually did.

Hey, i agree with you on something.  Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, how sucky would it be to have to present Trump's case as a lawyer.  Now they are arguing executive privlege that hasn't even been asserted...LOL.  

Schiff and the Dems may or may not be as good of lawyers but having to defend such an open and shut case would be so hard!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Agreed.

The YBU fan was in error in saying we non-Repubs didn't think this process was partisan. I've said all along it has been motivated in part by politics but that the Dems have also been doing what is right or as smalltowndog put it, that Trump is "guilty as sin" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors and needs to be held to account. However, by being impatient and not going to court to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to All the President's Men prior to bringing articles of impeachment, the House Dems effed up the process. History will look very badly on Donald Trump but it won't be very favorable to Nancy Pelosi either.

Nor should history look favorably on any of us. Trump, Pelosi...they aren’t the real problem.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

What I find comical is you think I’m supporting Trump by calling out hypocrisy.  In your eyes the Dems are saints and the Republicans are treasonous. So if I say anything less than Trump is a traitor and needs removed then I’m endorsing Trump in your eyes.   

Just curious Mug...  1) if in fact Trump did what was alleged in your opinion was it grounds for impeachment?   2) what level of proof should be required in an indictment because fundamentally that is what the house process was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Just curious Mug...  1) if in fact Trump did what was alleged in your opinion was it grounds for impeachment?   2) what level of proof should be required in an indictment because fundamentally that is what the house process was?

I’ll address your second point first.  I didn’t have an issue with the house impeachment process.  I did think they rushed it a bit and that was a mistake but otherwise I don’t really take an issue with what they did.  As to your first point, I don’t know.  Every president has played fast and loose when it comes to obeying laws.  I argued at the time the house should’ve censured the President and still think that may have been the best course of action.  Probably would’ve gotten some Republicans to support censuring Trump.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’ll address your second point first.  I didn’t have an issue with the house impeachment process.  I did think they rushed it a bit and that was a mistake but otherwise I don’t really take an issue with what they did.  As to your first point, I don’t know.  Every president has played fast and loose when it comes to obeying laws.  I argued at the time the house should’ve censured the President and still think that may have been the best course of action.  Probably would’ve gotten some Republicans to support censuring Trump.  

Do you have an example of a past president asking a foreign government to assist him in an election or re-election campaign by initiating an investigation of a political rival?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...