The trial of Donald J. Trump

It is clear the Senate will not vote the 67% to convict Trump - foregone conclusion. Fascist DPST's are pushing this proceeding - wanting witnesses and more testimony not under precedent in the forwarded Articles of Impeachment - to get a denial vote in the Senate.

They can then claim "Unfair" at the top of the lungs and try to use that hypocritical characterization of the Senate proceedings to defeat Trump in 2020 election.

The other matter is they will pressure the republican senators on the borderline to vote to convict - romney, Collins. others - to get a 51% vote to convict - and can then spout to the public that the Senate majority voted to Convict Trump in election propaganda.



It is all about the 2020 election and preparing propaganda for the Fascist DPST's.

Speed....the Dems are trying to convince the independent voters in swing states that GOP Senators are trying to cover up Trumps misdeeds by not hearing from witnesses.

They'll probably get Collins to vote for witnesses and Mitt and Lisa....not sure where they get another Senator. Trump appeased all his senatorial hawks with this Iranian bluff.

Witnesses - i think McConnell has handled this proceeding in a reasonable and even-handed fashion.

Listen to the presentations, forward questions, and then vote on witnesses.

a "Quid pro quo" arrangement on witnesses would suit me fine - The Fascist DPST's call a witness, the republicans call a witness. One for One - no "restrictions" as nazi pelosi and corrupt schumer have been desperate to arrange.

Bring on Bolton - then bring on Biden - either one.

I still believe the Fascist DPST's are desperately trying every strategem to be able to call the proceeding "UNFAIR" with a slight justification - for use against Trump in 2020 election.

Speed....the Dems are trying to convince the independent voters in swing states that GOP Senators are trying to cover up Trumps misdeeds by not hearing from witnesses.

They'll probably get Collins to vote for witnesses and Mitt and Lisa....not sure where they get another Senator. Trump appeased all his senatorial hawks with this Iranian bluff. Originally Posted by WTF

"House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA) said while it would be "fair" for President Trump to call witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial it would "not be appropriate" for him to call Hunter Biden."


HUNTER BIDEN MUST TESTIFY!


BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ter_biden.html

Hunter will bring down this card house of lying

Hunter will bring down this card house of lying Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Hunter's going to suffer a .44 mag brain tumor ..



BAHHAHHAAAAA

"House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA) said while it would be "fair" for President Trump to call witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial it would "not be appropriate" for him to call Hunter Biden."
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Democrats should have thought about that before they mentioned the Bidens over 400 times in their opening 24 hours. That's called "opening the door" for the defense to call anybody mentioned by the prosecution.


What I found interesting in the Bondi remarks, is the third person in the company that Hunter was part of Chris Heinz, said he wanted nothing to do with Burisma.


https://nypost.com/2019/09/29/hunter...r-ukraine-gig/


Heinz parted ways with both men after raising concerns about corruption in Ukraine and questions about appearance.
“The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper.

Since October, according to RealClearPolitics, Trump's approval rating has gone from about -14% to a current -6.1%. That is significant. Unfortunately the polling does not break it down by state.

So why are Trump supporters complaining about the impeachment when it looks like it is having a rather positive impact on Trump's reelection campaign? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Uh! because it is a partisan witch hunt? This is exactly what worried the founding fathers on impeachment, one party trying to over turn an election because of, in their minds "maladministration" which was rejected by the framers of the Constitution.


Remember, this whole thing started because an "advisor" disagreed with a policy decision of the President. The President took a policy position the advisor, Lt. Colonel Vindman, didn't approve of and later testified that the President didn't follow his talking points with regard to Ukraine, his baby because his father was born there. When asked if he thought what President Trump did was illegal, he said he didn't know. So he didn't base his objection on a matter of law but because his feelings were hurt. And this will now become the precedent for impeaching a President?


What some people fail to understand is, this is much about using impeachment on future Presidents, not just this one. That is what Starr and Dershowitz talked about. They are upset about what this impeachment portends for future Presidents.

Democrats should have thought about that before they mentioned the Bidens over 400 times in their opening 24 hours. That's called "opening the door" for the defense to call anybody mentioned by the prosecution.


What I found interesting in the Bondi remarks, is the third person in the company that Hunter was part of Chris Heinz, said he wanted nothing to do with Burisma.


https://nypost.com/2019/09/29/hunter...r-ukraine-gig/


Heinz parted ways with both men after raising concerns about corruption in Ukraine and questions about appearance.
“The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Heinz didn’t need the money.

Heinz didn’t need the money. Originally Posted by bambino

Or he foresaw the consequences of getting into business with such corruption and wanted no part of it. Seems his premonition came true.

And the defense rests. Cipolloni closed the day with video of Nadler, Lofgren and Shumer railing about the "partisan injustice" of impeaching Clinton.


And he ended with these words from Shumer from 1998.

I EXPECT HISTORY WILL SHOW THAT WE HAVE LOWERED THE BAR ON IMPEACHMENT SO MUCH, WE HAVE BROKEN THE SEAL ON THIS EXTREME PENALTY SO CAVALIERLY, THAT IT WILL BE USED AS A ROUTINE TOOL TO FIGHT POLITICAL BATTLES. MY FEAR IS THAT WHEN A REPUBLICAN WINS THE WHITE HOUSE, DEMOCRATS WILL DEMAND PAYBACK.

Cipolloni looked over at Shumer and said "you were right and prophetic".


I can only imagine and chuckle at what must have been going through the minds of Nadler, Lofgren and Shumer watching those old clips and being reminded that they are now doing what they said was unjust just over 20 years ago.


Jay Sekulow is getting a lot of praise for his command "of the stage". While Philbins remarks were very cut and dry, what a civics lesson he gave us and the Democrats.


Tomorrow will be questions from both sides.



I think the defense did a masterful job and I can't help but say that I am quite pleased with myself for understanding the case and particularly, the legal arguments before they were presented. They even brought up the Obama quid pro quo! "Whataboutism" at it's finest.

Hunter Biden's buddy Devon Archer was convicted on charges of defrauding the Oglala Sioux of the Pine Ridge Reservation and multiple pension funds through the issue of $60 million worth of tribal bonds, but an Odumbo judge overturned the decision. Reuters


“While there is no evidence that Hunter Biden or Chris Heinz knew of the tribal bonds scheme, the corporate structure of the Rosemont businesses suggested they could have – and maybe should have – known.” When Devon Archer was arrested in 2016, Burisma removed him from its board (pp. 68-73, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends Peter Schweizer).

I think the defense did a masterful job and I can't help but say that I am quite pleased with myself for understanding the case and particularly, the legal arguments before they were presented. They even brought up the Obama quid pro quo! "Whataboutism" at it's finest. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You seem to be wanting a pat on the back but will be getting a swift kick in the ass with your partisan nonsense.

Fucking just another OJ lawyer....

You seem to be wanting a pat on the back but will be getting a swift kick in the ass with your partisan nonsense.

Fucking just another OJ lawyer.... Originally Posted by WTF

How many threads are you going to use the “OJ lawyer” post!

Keep trying!!!!!!!

I thi k you need to swallow Starr's jizz before posting another word.

Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.

Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug. Originally Posted by WTF

What The Fuck, how far is school did you go before you got kicked out. If you can't think for yourself, just rely on emotion.