Impeachment?

[jp1]

And 61 pages later, a brief summation of why the ugly orange turd needs to be impeached and removed. Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.

https://www.theamericanconservative....-overwhelming/

[Rogar]

Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.

I don't think the facts will be particularly relevant to the vote anyway.

I've listened to quite a bit of the proceedings from the start and other than some conspiracy theory the defense has been such weak fancy legal word smithing I'm surprised anyone at all has bought into it. I might have had a nightmare where Jim Jordan is my boss and he just called me into his office and closed the door.

[jp1]

I don't think the facts will be particularly relevant to the vote anyway.

.

Of course not. The republicans are the anti-fact party. They know that being stupid yelling a-holes works just fine if the facts aren’t in your favor. After all, look at how things turned out for justice Rapey McBeer.

[gimmethesimplelife]

And 61 pages later, a brief summation of why the ugly orange turd needs to be impeached and removed. Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.

https://www.theamericanconservative....-overwhelming/

It's nice to see someone conservative advocating The Sociopath of Orange's impeachment. Rob

[LDAHL]

Of course not. The republicans are the anti-fact party. They know that being stupid yelling a-holes works just fine if the facts aren’t in your favor. After all, look at how things turned out for justice Rapey McBeer.

Facts seemed pretty thin on the ground in the case of our newest Associate Justice. Unless you count “credible accusations” as facts. Or learned interpretations of high school yearbook scribblings. Or silly playground insults.

Our current impeachment kerfuffle seems to be, as they say, more a political than a legal/forensic process. Whether the foolish actions of this foolish president rise to the level of a national security threat or not seemed less important to both parties than timing votes to the news cycle. With the outcome in both houses virtually predetermined, the whole process seems to be a mere sound bite generator.

[jp1]

You’re right, Ldahl. republicans think it’s perfectly acceptable for a president to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign. No big deal at all to them.

[flowerseverywhere]

You’re right, Ldahl. republicans think it’s perfectly acceptable for a president to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign. No big deal at all to them.

id like to correct your statement. Republicans think it is perfectly for a Republican President to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign.

[jp1]

I stand corrected. It would probably also be fine with them if he lied about a blowjob.

[LDAHL]

I stand corrected. It would probably also be fine with them if he lied about a blowjob.

Well we have established the precedent that perjuring oneself, at least with regard to sexually exploiting subordinates, does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Rogar]

Facts seemed pretty thin on the ground in the case of our newest Associate Justice. Unless you count “credible accusations” as facts. Or learned interpretations of high school yearbook scribblings. Or silly playground insults.

One thing I don't get about the defense is that the witness testimonies, all by credible patriots, have been discounted as not being first hand accounts, yet the ones that may have the first hand accounts have been blocked from testifying by the defenses. What is Donald hiding?

But like we've said, it's mostly mute points.