So the Orange Clown in Chief Got Impeached.

He can't help himself he has diarrhea of the mouth.
I showed him where he was full of shit and this "attorney" could only express himself with vile language...show his intellectual capacity, he's a real class act don't you know. He threatens to kick people's ass that are couldn't hardly defend themselves...a real bad ass!!
He doesn't post this in the political form because he would get his ass handed to him...he just goes after low hanging fruit.
He cries "get off my thread"...He can't handle people showing him that he doesn't know what the shit he is talking about.

He can't help himself he has diarrhea of the mouth.
I showed him where he was full of shit and this "attorney" could only express himself with vile language...show his intellectual capacity, he's a real class act don't you know. He threatens to kick people's ass that are couldn't hardly defend themselves...a real bad ass!!
He doesn't post this in the political form because he would get his ass handed to him...he just goes after low hanging fruit.
He cries "get off my thread"...He can't handle people showing him that he doesn't know what the shit he is talking about. Originally Posted by bb1961

Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see this coming from a mile away.

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...69&postcount=1

I didn't read any of that nonsense you are spewing because it's just that...


https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...of-impeachment Originally Posted by bb1961

RTM before edit.


Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

He can't help himself he has diarrhea of the mouth.
I showed him where he was full of shit and this "attorney" could only express himself with vile language...show his intellectual capacity, he's a real class act don't you know. He threatens to kick people's ass that are couldn't hardly defend themselves...a real bad ass!!
He doesn't post this in the political form because he would get his ass handed to him...he just goes after low hanging fruit.
He cries "get off my thread"...He can't handle people showing him that he doesn't know what the shit he is talking about. Originally Posted by bb1961

Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see this coming from a mile away. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

ya'll peeps are just the best..

DJ: omg he's having a meltdown..
bahahahahahahahahahahaha


BB: omg i offer so much to this board..
bahahahahahahahahahahaha

nope peeps ya'll have shown you are unable to help yourself from trolling. that's what's sad. grow up and get a life. i'm not the center of the universe, i'm just a regular joe. stop revolving around me.

i recommend gardening. it's very therapeutic for times like these.

i have a 6 foot papaya tree that grew up from my compost heap! i have 6 apple trees i grew from seed, probably 12 citrus i grew from seed, dozens of beautyberry bushes i grew from seed from Memorial Park, a bunch of different herbs and spices, an avacado tree from seed, a peanut plant i grew from store-bought peanuts lol, a green pepper plant i grew from seed, habanero and jalapeno plants. and check this out. i'm growing a giant sequoia tree from seed; i got the seeds off the internet. when it's big enough to transplant, i'm going to plant it somewhere near the back trails of Memorial Park. giant sequoia trees grow super fast if they're happy, so hopefully in about 500 years-assuming we haven't destroyed the planet by then-after i'm long dead and gone, Memorial Park will be renamed Giant Sequoia Park lol..

anyone know the best way to grow cherries, mangoes, and peaches/plums/etc. from seed? my usual techniques haven't really worked. also, anyone know how i can get my citrus to flower? i guess all the answers should really be posted to Slit's tomato thread. i'll be checking for any suggestions.

back on topic. Trump made the right call extending the stay at home rec through the end of April. props to Trump.

hope ya'll have a great day.

um sir Article 1 of Nixon's articles of impeachment was for obstruction of justice. it is a thing. it happens a lot of times in Rico cases and organized crime. witnesses who were willing to testify suddenly are "unavailable." gee i wonder why.. (by the way, my example would also include witness tampering.)

one of the things about discovery is parties are asked to disclose all relevant information. when one party, such as Trump, says fuck you to the whole process, he is liable for Obstruction of Justice. did you notice how hard trump worked to make sure that Bolton didn't testify? Bolton knew everything, Trump knew Bolton knew everything, and Trump was willing to do just about anything to make sure Bolton didn't testify. trump is basically a wannabe mafia don. Bolton would have needed an elite 24/7 security detail if he had decided to testify, and it would not have surprised me one bit if he had a sudden "accident" that kept him from testifying. that's how corrupt trump is.

i'm going to answer the other question that i think you're asking. Pelosi and company could have sued to compel Trump to produce people and documents. it would have made it to the Supreme Court eventually, but it would have dragged out til close to the 2020 election. but since their case was airtight-Trump was clearly guilty to any impartial jury- Pelosi and Schiff decided to proceed with the ample evidence already available.

Schiff put on a clinic on how you try a case, especially a criminal case. Newbie prosecutors need to take notes on how Schiff conducted that trial. it was a fucking masterpiece. but Nadler is almost as much a clown as Trump. when i watched Nadler, i was thinking to myself, dude just sit your sorry ass down and stfu already..

any more legal questions lol.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Rico cases generally have an underlying organized crime charge or charges. Something the person actually did then obstructed in the investigation. Obstruction charges are a piling on of charges to enhance the severity of the crime, the perceived severity of the guilt and punishment. LEO do that all the time. Feds rarely charge someone unless they have a open and shut case. The Justice Department's prosecution and plea deals of FBI referred charges are in the 90 - 95 percent range because "The FBI always gets their man". There may now be some question as to their tactics but that's a matter for another debate. The point is there was no crime...Had the Democrats followed the FBI model they would have dropped that shit like a hot potato and moved on to something else.

Instead they decided to idiotically charge him with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. It was idiotic on the surface because there was no underlying crime that they charged him with and it was an idiotic waste of time because they knew that, at the end of the day, they had a biased jury. Their only hope was that a fishing expedition of endless witnesses might uncover something new but the house doesn't control the trial as badly as they tried. Secondarily they hoped that an impeachment trial might sway public opinion but they acted so badly in the lead up it kind of blew up in their faces. Adam Schiff should have never been the front man for that media campaign. He came off way too petulant but he must have been the only person in Congress either dumb enough or power hungry enough to take on the challenge. Nadler is a buffoon trying to ride anyone's coat tails who will feed him a scrap. Pelosi was the puppeteer caught between a rock(lack of charges) and a hard place(radical left wing socialists democrats, lead by the squad, threatening her position as speaker).

That hard place is the reason they didn't drag it out til closer to the election. That would have been a better strategy, IMO but the squad was insisting on doing something NOW. I doubt that SCOTUS would have compelled Trump to release those records but the Dems could have played that decision in their favor for a month leading up to election day. Instead they are thankful now that a national crisis has drawn attention away from their colossal failure of impeachment.


Discovery is the exchange of legal information and known facts of CASE , between parties. Meaning that charges exist and indictment has occurred. At that point both parties are required to disclose what they have. Discovery is NOT a fishing expedition.
Impeachment is indictment. Article I stated that Trump solicited a foreign government, Ukraine, to interfere in the 2020 elections. Discovery should be limited to evidence of that interference. That evidence was a transcript of a phone call. That's all they had. Bolton testifying would not have made a difference. Even if he had said their was a quid pro quo Trump's attorneys would have torn that, and Bolton, apart. The fact is they knew Bolton wasn't going to provide any additional evidence anyway that's why the House didn't call him in the impeachment phase. They wanted to be able to point the finger at the Senate for blowing the trial because they didn't call Bolton. It wasn't the Senate's job to discover anything. It was to render judgement on what the House presented. Their case was so full of holes their only hope was to make The Senate look more biased that the House was.
It was all a bad political showing.

For instance:

They turned over the transcript of the phone call and that fuckhead Schiff sat there and paraphrased it in front of Congress then said it was a parody when called out on it. No judge in America would have let something like that happen, not even in opening or closing where attorneys have greater latitude.

now i know you're going to come back all snarky at me and say, no you retard there's this doctrine called executive priviledge (sp?) that renders all your arguments null and void. so let me save you that extra step.

executive priviledge is a thing. this doctrine allows the president to exempt from disclosure certain types of information. the policy behind this is not to turn a president into a king. rather, we want the president to have the ability to have open and frank discussions with his advisors without having to worry about this information being readily disclosed for example in any and all lawsuits by every Tom, Dick and Harry. if the president had to worry about that, this would have a chilling effect on those open and frank discussions with his advisors that we think a president should be able to have in order to have maximal information with advisors and outside experts.
Originally Posted by pxmcc

You just wrecked any argument you previously made for John Bolton to testify.

You just wrecked any argument you previously made for John Bolton to testify. Originally Posted by boardman

well lol..

executive privilege is a thing yes, but like any other legal argument, it must be made in good faith. so lets say Trump and Bolton had an animated discussion about whether we should pull out of Syria or not. (you know they did too ha ha. to be a fly on the wall in that room..) and the ACLU has a lawsuit against Trump for who knows what. and the ACLU says we want to know what was said in that room because it's highly relevant to our suit. Trump can clearly say hell naw, invoking executive privilege.

but lets say Trump commits a felony, and Bolton knows about the felony and wants to testify in a Congressional hearing about what he knows about that felony. Trump can scream executive privilege to prevent Bolton testifying. Congress can sue in federal court to compel Bolton to testify. The Court will ask Trump why executive privilege should apply, and his argument will fail. (think Nixon's tapes.) So Bolton will be able to testify. Executive privilege was never intended to be used by the president to allow him to prevent disclosure of his felonious conduct.

If Bolton had chosen to testify before the House, there's not one damn thing Trump could have done about it (excepting, mafia-style, securing Bolton's "unavailability" to testify lol.)

well lol..

executive privilege is a thing yes, but like any other legal argument, it must be made in good faith. so lets say Trump and Bolton had an animated discussion about whether we should pull out of Syria or not. (you know they did too ha ha. to be a fly on the wall in that room..) and the ACLU has a lawsuit against Trump for who knows what. and the ACLU says we want to know what was said in that room because it's highly relevant to our suit. Trump can clearly say hell naw, invoking executive privilege.

but lets say Trump commits a felony, and Bolton knows about the felony and wants to testify in a Congressional hearing about what he knows about that felony. Trump can scream executive privilege to prevent Bolton testifying. Congress can sue in federal court to compel Bolton to testify. The Court will ask Trump why executive privilege should apply, and his argument will fail. (think Nixon's tapes.) So Bolton will be able to testify. Executive privilege was never intended to be used by the president to allow him to prevent disclosure of his felonious conduct.

If Bolton had chosen to testify before the House, there's not one damn thing Trump could have done about it (excepting, mafia-style, securing Bolton's "unavailability" to testify lol.) Originally Posted by pxmcc

but lets say Trump commits a felony
That's the hypothetical that you're basing a conviction on? That's TDS talking. If the House had solid charges and proof they would have brought solid articles of impeachment. They didn't have anything so they tried to make it a fishing expedition. Anyone with any common sense saw through that whole debacle.



In any other felony case you have to get an indictment. That means proving the case is solid enough to take to trial(in a nutshell). The House didn't do that. They based their whole argument on a phone call.

Despite Schiff paraphrasing the whole transcript there was nothing in the transcript that came close to felonious behavior. Then they moved to a quid pro quo argument.

Despite calling several witnesses and even leading some of those into giving their opinions there was not one witness that actually said Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Bolton wasn't going to say anything different than what they already had. That's why they didn't call him but instead demanded the Senate call him. They knew the Senate wouldn't do it and opted to play it up that the Senate didn't perform a proper trial when in fact they did. It was the responsibility of the House to get all the evidence before referring the articles for trial.

Beyond that, If you read the transcript, Trump was trying to get the new Ukrainian President to investigate whether Biden used a quid pro quo to deflect heat from his son and the company his son was sitting on a BOD for. That's corruption of the highest magnitude. Trump asked them to look into it. He never said if you don't I'm withholding money but even if he had it wouldn't have been any more or less illegal than what Biden did and is on tape bragging about it. As chief law enforcement officer he has the right to ask another country to investigate something that smells fishy regarding other politicians... to investigate corruption.
That's what draining the swamp looks like. The fact that it was a potential 2020 opponent looked bad on the surface but it was far from treasonous.
There was no felony that they could even legitimately get an indictment on so there was nothing to compel testimony or further discovery. It was all a fishing expedition.

Trump may not be as polished of a politician as say Clinton was but he's every bit as smart if not smarter. That drives the left crazy. He's playing chess while they're trying to figure out if the checkers pieces go on the red square or the black.

but lets say Trump commits a felony
That's the hypothetical that you're basing a conviction on? That's TDS talking. If the House had solid charges and proof they would have brought solid articles of impeachment. They didn't have anything so they tried to make it a fishing expedition. Anyone with any common sense saw through that whole debacle.



In any other felony case you have to get an indictment. That means proving the case is solid enough to take to trial(in a nutshell). The House didn't do that. They based their whole argument on a phone call.

Despite Schiff paraphrasing the whole transcript there was nothing in the transcript that came close to felonious behavior. Then they moved to a quid pro quo argument.

Despite calling several witnesses and even leading some of those into giving their opinions there was not one witness that actually said Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Bolton wasn't going to say anything different than what they already had. That's why they didn't call him but instead demanded the Senate call him. They knew the Senate wouldn't do it and opted to play it up that the Senate didn't perform a proper trial when in fact they did. It was the responsibility of the House to get all the evidence before referring the articles for trial.

Beyond that, If you read the transcript, Trump was trying to get the new Ukrainian President to investigate whether Biden used a quid pro quo to deflect heat from his son and the company his son was sitting on a BOD for. That's corruption of the highest magnitude. Trump asked them to look into it. He never said if you don't I'm withholding money but even if he had it wouldn't have been any more or less illegal than what Biden did and is on tape bragging about it. As chief law enforcement officer he has the right to ask another country to investigate something that smells fishy regarding other politicians... to investigate corruption.
That's what draining the swamp looks like. The fact that it was a potential 2020 opponent looked bad on the surface but it was far from treasonous.
There was no felony that they could even legitimately get an indictment on so there was nothing to compel testimony or further discovery. It was all a fishing expedition.

Trump may not be as polished of a politician as say Clinton was but he's every bit as smart if not smarter. That drives the left crazy. He's playing chess while they're trying to figure out if the checkers pieces go on the red square or the black. Originally Posted by boardman

you made several good points...which i wont address at this time.

but in legal circles, with regard to indictment, the saying is " You can indict a ham sandwich." or wait, was it "you can indict a turkey sandwich?"

speaking of which, can one of you hot providers "make me a sammich.." please

you made several good points...which i wont address at this time.

but in legal circles, with regard to indictment, the saying is " You can indict a ham sandwich." or wait, was it "you can indict a turkey sandwich?"
Originally Posted by pxmcc

It's ham sandwich and the fact that the House couldn't get a meaningful indictment speaks volumes. The impeachment was slanted and the trial was slanted. Everyone but those deluded by their TDS knew what the outcome was going to be. Middle of the road, regular flyover country folks, on both sides of the political fence, saw it for what it was and that was a waste of time witch hunt.

That's why support grew for Trump grew during and after the proceedings. He was still getting shit done even in the face of all that bullshit.

you made several good points...which i wont address at this time. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Why...Hummmmmm

Why...Hummmmmm Originally Posted by bb1961

because i was hangry and hoping a hot provider would make me a ham sammich.

wait is that sexist?

Your deflecting isn't cutting it...

because i was hangry and hoping a hot provider would make me a ham sammich.

wait is that sexist? Originally Posted by pxmcc

Sexist? Maybe, it depends...
Delusional? Most definitely. Hot providers are there to fuck not make sammiches.

Sexist? Maybe, it depends...
Delusional? Most definitely. Hot providers are there to fuck not make sammiches. Originally Posted by boardman

Boardman you know a lot of legal shit for a non liar. what the heck is your background? you just read a lot?