The Trump "So What" Defense.

[Lakhota]

God bless Adam Schiff. What a great man!

SCHIFF: CASE ‘IS PROVED’ ― IMPLORES GOP: SHOW ‘REAL MORAL COURAGE’

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

God bless Adam Schiff. What a great man!

SCHIFF: CASE ‘IS PROVED’ ― IMPLORES GOP: SHOW ‘REAL MORAL COURAGE’

Then they don't need witnesses.

Schiff must mean asshole in some other language.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, the NaziCon circus begins in about 7 hours.

 

[Lakhota]

Trumps defense is that he is above the law

Sure looks that way

Yes it does.

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans have struggled to defend the president’s own words as the Senate impeachment trial plays out.

TIME AFTER TIME: TRUMP INCRIMINATES HIMSELF

Trump* is definitely the worst witness against himself. His corruption won't end when the Senate impeachment trial ends.

 

[candycorn]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Correct. The blob clearly committed an abuse of power

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans have struggled to defend the president’s own words as the Senate impeachment trial plays out.

TIME AFTER TIME: TRUMP INCRIMINATES HIMSELF

Trump* is definitely the worst witness against himself. His corruption won't end when the Senate impeachment trial ends.

Except CNN says he's winning.

And Schitt says he has an air tight case.

But he should be allowed to call more witnesses.

He makes zero sense.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Correct. The blob clearly committed an abuse of power

Well,

Get ready for four more years of it.

 

[Faun]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

 

[Faun]

I'm not going there and say so what if Trump's guilty. The Articles are total partisan bullshit. So why even give Nancy a talking point?
Article-2 is dead, the USSC killed it. Trump does have the right of due process, and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House"
Article-1 is dead, hearsay evidence is NOT allowed in the senate.

It's not hearsay. Impeached Trump himself admitted he solicited a foreign national to investigate a political rival...

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..." ~ Impeached Trump, 7.25.19​

 

[Faun]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

 

[Faun]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

Shit, the brain-dead right flipped out because Obama showed his birth certificate. They would have assassinated him had he solicited campaign help from a foreign national like Impeached Trump had done.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Well, the NaziCon circus begins in about 7 hours.

Following the left wing PelosiPussy shit show.

I can hardly wait.

 

[MaryL]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Actually, would it be to much to define actuality what laws Trump violated? OH, wait a minute, they can't. They digress. How do you define "ABUSE of POWER"? And WHO defines 'it"? By Who's standards? FDR a democrat, put Japanese Americans in internment camps, lets by all means look into this, Trump ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

 

[Faun]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

 

[Faun]

No, ya don't...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.