Really? You don’t need all the facts before you impeach and attempt to remove a president? Yes, it takes time, and that’s why they couldn’t wait. They had to because of expediency. I mean, in every other case, you’re supposed to have the facts in hand before you take action.
I guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?
Everything is clearer in hindsight, but you have to go on what they knew THEN, which was nothing. They hadn’t done an iota of investigation, they knew of the Eastman memo and a riot. They didn’t know anything else. That’s pretty thin, and even more suspicious when you have nearly everyone on the going after trump from the get go.
This wouldn’t work if the situation were reversed.
Also, the left continues to claim that trump “pointed the mob” at the capital to go storm it. There was no evidence for that then, and there isn’t any now. Yes, trump used rhetoric in his speeches, just like EVERY other politician does. That doesn’t mean that his intention was to get people to go riot. He never told them to go break windows and enter the capitol, he specifically said “go peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, a statement that was conveniently never even uttered during the entire J6 hearings , and even left out in every video they played.
My bad, ok Cheney and kinsinger only voted 1 time , but kinsinger, after the second impeachment said he regretted not voting to impeach on the first one, based on everything that happened, and Cheney made it clear that she would do everything in her power to prevent trump from getting re elected. Suffice to say, there were no pro trump people on the J6 committee.
No, I’m not saying that, I’m saying that, during the course of the J6 investigation, and the hearings, it seems that there was not a single bit of evidence, nor any testimony that was favorable to trump. I never heard anyone brought in to testify on behalf of trump, doesn’t that seem odd? Are you suggesting that there wasn’t anyone they could have subpoenaed that could have refuted anything that was being said? There seemed to be no alternative viewpoints, everything was in the tone of “orange man bad”. Is that coincidence, or selective subpoena-ing?
Was there an investigation? We’re there witnesses? Was the jury already known to have bias againsnt the boss? Or the secretary? These are scenarios that are not pertinent to what is going on here.
Look, if trump committed a crime, and there wasn’t already an army of people gunning for him, and he was convicted, that would be fine, but, unfortunately, we do have an army of people gunning for him, and have been since he came down the escalator, so that complicated things. Remember also, this is, at least I feel, all political. Nobody really seemed to care about trumps past life, his taxes, who’s “pussy he grabbed”, or what his real estate business looked like, until he became political. Everything was hunky dory when he was donating money to the Clinton’s, and everyone loved him…then he decided to run for president, and at that point, the democrats labeled him as public enemy #1.
So, yeah, I’m not confident he will get a fair trial in a liberal haven like DC, just like most dems wouldn’t think he would get a fair trial if the venue was moved to a conservative venue with a conservative judge. They’d throw a fit over it…in fact, they already have been throwing a fit over the possibility of them requesting a change of venue.
No, you don't. I don't need every last detail of a crime in order to establish someone is guilty. Simply enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's in a court with rigorous standards. Impeachment just needs to establish high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the senate.You don’t need all the facts before you impeach
It would be bad for the country as a whole so no. Politically speaking though I would welcome it. I'd like nothing more than the GOP trying to defend impeachment during a highly televised hearing on the facts as they are now established. Really, go for it. There's a reason McCarthy is ducking.guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?
I didn't need hindsight to know that Trump wanted the election results overturned, called the people to Washington to stop the certification and know he send them to the Capitol with the words I'm paraphrasing "give the lawmakers the courage to do the right thing" you might think it not a euphemism. Most people would have no problem sussing it out though. The only thing I needed was reading comprehension skills and ears.Everything is clearer in hindsight
If all the stuff is true,no.Are you suggesting that there wasn’t anyone they could have subpoenaed that could have refuted anything that was being said?
It's not if you're telling the truth.doesn’t that seem odd?
The guy has been involved in literally thousands of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant. This well before he became president. Does that mean they're gunning for him, or that he's involved in a lot of shady shit?" As for it being political. READ THE INDICTMENTS they describe real crimes covered by real criminal statutes in a highly detailed way.we do have an army of people gunning for him, and have been since he came down the escalator, so that complicated things. Remember also, this is, at least I feel, all political.
People did care. It just wasn't as widely reported prior him becoming president.Nobody really seemed to care about trumps past life, his taxes, who’s “pussy he grabbed”, or what his real estate business looked like
Again. Whenever you say something like that, you're actually saying "if I simply state that some hypothetical Democrat would react in the same way, somehow my reaction would be valid." It's not. Even if you are right that someone else would react the same way you wouldn't get an inch closer to proving your reaction is valid. This isn't even a whataboutism. It's begging the question so you can use a whataboutism. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.just like most dems wouldn’t think he would get a fair trial if the venue was moved to a conservative venue with a conservative judge.
Last edited: