Tweet
Originally posted by JimL
View Post
JimL where you around during the Nixon Impeachment? You couldn't have been otherwise you would have known that there was a heavy push by the Republicans. Subpoenas where requested and challenged in the courts. Congress felt that we needed to remove the President right away. But they knew that they needed more then just hearsay, assumption and probable cause to remove a sitting President. They setup a committee with a special prosecutor to handle the investigation and only took it over control when the special prosecutor was fired by Nixon. but the special prosecutor gave them enough evidence to convince the Senate to remove the President (67 senators). The Senate did not start out that why they where convince by strong evidence. Also in the articles of Impeachment being drafted on Nixon there where actual statutes of the crimes that Nixon committed. In other words actual crimes where alleged. Even in the Clinton Impeachment actual statutes where sighted.
The republicans did not cover-up anything because there was nothing to cover-up. In a real court you could not win your case if all you have is Hearsay, Assumption, and according to watermelon Probable Cause, the case would not even make it to the pre-trial because of "lack of facts in evidence". And the burden of evidence to remove a sitting President is much higher then a real court by design. If it would be tossed out of court in a real court it really has no right to pass the houses impeachment possess.
I have heard the Dems say over and over again that they took no joy in Impeaching the President that they where solemn and serious in their deliberation. If that where the case why did Adam Schiff start the proceedings with a Lie, and when caught what was Schiff's excuse, Oh it was a parody of the phone call. JimL explain to me why you would start extremely serious proceedings with a parody, was Schiff making a joke out of the proceedings? If so, how serious are we to take Schiff from that point on. Let's say that Schiff was serious in his representation of the call. If that is true then he lied, twice once in his gross miss representation of the call, then again when he got caught and call it a parody. in this case how can we trust Schiff to be objective to the process. Well as it proved out Schiff was not objective.
I fine it interesting how for you JimL it always comes down to the liberal talking point that Trump is a dictator. Do you know what a dictator really is (Dictator, JimL keeps using that word I do not think it means what he thinks it means). A dictator is someone that takes control over every thing around him, I'll give an example:
Some one how puts himself up as judge, prosecutor, and defense. Some one that puts himself above the Law by denying Do Process, and Ignores the rights of others. He also makes up his own rules and when they don't work for him he ignores them. JimL I know this is getting a little long but hang in with me. Nadler and Schiff did all of this and more. Don't tell me that the House let the President's Lawyers to be present and ask questions that was a dictators smoke screen, List for me what witnesses they where able to interrogate (None, the expert witnesses in Nadler's committee really don't count), this is the act of a dictator. Schiff and Nadler didn't even follow their own rule of the house (I guess being dictators means they don't have to follow their own rules). If you want my proof it's the fact that the minority was not allowed their day to call any witnesses they wanted. This is a rule of the house and was denied because dictators Schiff and Nadler are above the law and don't have to follow the rules. As for with holding documents dictator Schiff does not have to provide documents that are asked of him, like the deposition of the 18th witness the IG that took the "non-whistle blowers complaint". By the way the status of Whistle Blower is only valid if the information you give is factual and credible, since the non-whistle blowers complaints don't match the actual phone call (They are closer to Schiff's Lie as to the what was on the Phone call). Hence no whistle blower status, but I digress.
Lets look at the brothers that where removed from their position at the white house. LT "V" was given a bad review from his boss, in the hearings no less. His views on policy went against the policies put forth by the President. JimL as an experiment tell head of your company that you know more then him and that he should be implementing your policy instead of his, you will not do that because you'll be shown the door. Lt "V" was not fired he was sent back to the pentagon because he did a bad job and thought he made policy. His brother the lawyer was complicit in this so he was sent back also. The President has the right to have the people around him support his policies, This is not a dictator this is how you get things done.
Please JimL, I know it goes beyond talking points, but next time you go for you talking points, ask your handles what true evidence they have that Trump did anything wrong, Please no Hearsay, Assumption or Probable Cause, none of these are allowable in court. I'd like to see a list. Oh, and by the way witnesses that did not appear don't count because you can't verify what they would say. And stay away form the old talking point of the republicans are hiding the truth because innocent people would allow the witnesses. Because then you need to explain to me what the Bidens are hiding, if there was nothing wrong why not just come out and clear their name. What are they hiding.
Please give me a list of real evidence to prove that Trump should be removed from office. Evidence that would at minimum hold up in a real court. As I told Watermelon if you can't give the evidence any taking point you use is mote.
Comment