The purpose of Impeachment.

Amazingly not one thing you said other than knowing more today is true. Seriously, it's all spinning the truth. We never used to have alternative truth.

 

That would be just a bit better than your belief that a guy can be convicted if sufficient people have an opinion that he committed a crime, or if a larger number of people really hate the guy.

 

Well, the ole nyah, nyah, nyah retort.

 

huh? I pointed out everything he said in his post was incorrect and untrue.

 

The worst scenario for Democrats is another Trump term.... another four years of the President spitting in the face of the MSM and the politically correct. He is showing ordinary Americans that if they have the balls, they too can stand up to the left and not be destroyed.

 

But when the post was all correct and true then your retort is the equivalent to "nyah, nyah, nyah."

 

but it wasn't. that's why I pointed it out.

 

You clearly think the founders and framers were a bunch of imbeciles.

 

He didn't. He just said "Talk to Giuliani".

This concept that a criminal has to actually state his crime as he is committing it, or he's not guilty...Hope you know that i'ts not going to save Trump

 

Bingo!!!

 

Well so far there is zero evidence Trump ordered anyone to do anything. Ukraine claims no pressure. Direct testimony from Trump is 180 from the dem clown show narrative.

 

See? Another nyah, nyah, nyah.

 

Yes. If many witnesses testify that he committed a crime, and not a single one testifies to the contrary,... that's how criminals are convicted. But if, on top of that, you have a memo released by the accused himself that is consistent with all those testimonies... you have a home run. Add to that tons and tons of circumstantial evidence (which might not be acceptable in a criminal trial, but are more than welcome in a political trial) like the fact that the President stonewalls the investigation, has never shown the least bit of interest in fighting corruption, he's a known pathological liar, .... and so much more... and you have a Grand Slam!

There is a point where the American People start realizing that their intelligence is being insulted by those who expect them to believe the lame "excuses" that Republicans are putting out.

Trump is in very deep deep ... doodoo. And every day he goes deeper.

 

The Judiciary committee is going down that path as we speak. Trump didn't say anything about the conjectured "crime" one way or another so that proves his guilt. You guys want Trump to testify, but there is literally nothing he could say that wouldn't bring up another reason for impeachment.

 

But there is no such evidence on Trump. Only opinions that he must have done something.

 

You are stuck in a ditch up a blind alley. NOBODY testified to a crime by Trump. They all testified that it was their opinion that he committed a crime. When all the witnesses were asked if they personally saw or heard (NOT about) a crime being committed they all answered NO.

 

Are you having trouble reading what I'm posting? I clearly didn't say what you are accusing me of. I pointed out that nothing in his post was true or correct.

 

Why don't you want to follow the Constitution? Instead, your statement perverts it.

Article II Section 2, provides for discretionary foreign monetary transfers.
For that reason alone, you have no case.

 

I pointed out you are 100% wrong. Maybe it is not nyah, nyah, nyah. Maybe in response to "is to" it is "am not..... am not..... am not."

 

but you know that I'm not, as you are aware everything he posted was incorrect and untrue.

I didn't say any of that either.

 

They were so unbelievably bright that they even predicted Trump. And wrote the remedy in the Constitution.

 

What a childish reply. I know you are but what am I. Folks that follow what is going on know it is precisely true. Just because it gets your panties in a knot doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

As a matter of fact, they all did! Even the ones that Republicans called.

I say again: you hiding your head in the sand will not help Trump. Trying to "dilute" it by calling their testimonies "opinions" is not going to help him. This is why, when they talk about the burden of proof, they underline "reasonable" when they say that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unreasonable doubts notwithstanding.

 

You are missing a lot.

 

You have the whistleblower's attorney pronouncing impeachment years ago. Not one charge in the impeachment inquiry is true. There....I fixed it.