Txdigest.com

That's completely nuts!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

Who ever heard of a trial without a crime?

Sangersteve wrote:Who ever heard of a trial without a crime?

Every one where the verdict was "not guilty"

planosteve wrote:

Sangersteve wrote:Who ever heard of a trial without a crime?

Every one where the verdict was "not guilty"

Shhhhhh... You're giving away the ending.

The democrat house debacle. Only those against Trump were allowed!

planosteve wrote:

Sangersteve wrote:Who ever heard of a trial without a crime?

Every one where the verdict was "not guilty"

In every criminal court proceeding, there is always an underlying crime. If a defendant is found not guilty, then perhaps the state charged the wrong guy, or perhaps they failed to prove the case, but there is still an underlying crime.

The way criminal investigations work is that you start with a crime, and then investigate the crime to try to determine who committed the crime.

In the case of the impeachment of President Trump, this process has been turned completely on it's head. The dumbass Democrats in the House started with their supposed criminal, and then went in search of a crime to hang on him.

The fact that the dumbass Democrats have alleged a bunch of nebulous bullshit against our president that isn't a crime proves that he is the squeakiest clean president in American history.

Indeed, "All Leftists lack critical thinking skills."

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is a Stalinist concept. Indeed, Nancy Pelosi is Joseph Stalin in drag.

Or to properly rephrase the question at the top of the thread...

Who ever heard of a trial with no crime?

Mark wrote:Or to properly rephrase the question at the top of the thread...

Who ever heard of a trial with no crime?

Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

planosteve wrote:

Mark wrote:Or to properly rephrase the question at the top of the thread...

Who ever heard of a trial with no crime?

Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

"Bribery, treason, high crimes, misdemeanors"

That's all criminal stuff.


The impeachment of President Trump is nearly identical to the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. In both cases, the party out of power impeached the president because they didn't like his proper use of executive power.

Corrupt Nancy Pelosi thinks she can control the House, the Senate, and the White House from her piddly little San Francisco House seat. She is the one that should be expelled from office, along with Schiff and Nadler.

planosteve wrote:

Mark wrote:Or to properly rephrase the question at the top of the thread...

Who ever heard of a trial with no crime?

Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

..which is why it’s folly to ask..”Who ever heard of a trial with no witnesses.”

It is not in that sense, a trial..trial’s involve an attempt to prosecute.

That was done in the House.

The Senate simply decides whether or not to remove the President, based on the evidence the House presented.

Nancy Pelosi: We impeached President Trump for "crimes" he committed in July, 2019.

Also Nancy Pelosi: We've been working on the impeachment of President Trump for two and a half years.

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:

Mark wrote:Or to properly rephrase the question at the top of the thread...

Who ever heard of a trial with no crime?

Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

..which is why it’s folly to ask..”Who ever heard of a trial with no witnesses.”

It is not in that sense, a trial..trial’s involve an attempt to prosecute.

That was done in the House.

The Senate simply decides whether or not to remove the President, based on the evidence the House presented.

I kind of agree.
Once the trial is over in the House, guilt is established or not.
The Senate decides whether to remove or not. But, they may need testamony to make their decision.

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

..which is why it’s folly to ask..”Who ever heard of a trial with no witnesses.”

It is not in that sense, a trial..trial’s involve an attempt to prosecute.

That was done in the House.

The Senate simply decides whether or not to remove the President, based on the evidence the House presented.

I kind of agree.
Once the trial is over in the House, guilt is established or not.
The Senate decides whether to remove or not. But, they may need testamony to make their decision.

That's the point you are missing. The dumbass Democrats in the House already presented their testimony in the House hearings. They proved nothing.

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:Once again, impeachment is not about criminal law.

..which is why it’s folly to ask..”Who ever heard of a trial with no witnesses.”

It is not in that sense, a trial..trial’s involve an attempt to prosecute.

That was done in the House.

The Senate simply decides whether or not to remove the President, based on the evidence the House presented.

I kind of agree.
Once the trial is over in the House, guilt is established or not.
The Senate decides whether to remove or not. But, they may need testamony to make their decision.

I believe that Mr Trump will not be removed. Hopefully he will also not be re-elected.

grouchy wrote:

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:
..which is why it’s folly to ask..”Who ever heard of a trial with no witnesses.”

It is not in that sense, a trial..trial’s involve an attempt to prosecute.

That was done in the House.

The Senate simply decides whether or not to remove the President, based on the evidence the House presented.

I kind of agree.
Once the trial is over in the House, guilt is established or not.
The Senate decides whether to remove or not. But, they may need testamony to make their decision.

I believe that Mr Trump will not be removed. Hopefully he will also not be re-elected.

Tired of winning?

jellowrestling wrote:

grouchy wrote:

planosteve wrote:I kind of agree.
Once the trial is over in the House, guilt is established or not.
The Senate decides whether to remove or not. But, they may need testamony to make their decision.

I believe that Mr Trump will not be removed. Hopefully he will also not be re-elected.

Tired of winning?

No

grouchy wrote:

jellowrestling wrote:

grouchy wrote:I believe that Mr Trump will not be removed. Hopefully he will also not be re-elected.

Tired of winning?

No

I'm not in the top 5% so I'm not "winning". I am, however, continuing the status quo that started in 2009. So I give Trump credit for not screwing it up too bad.

By the way, if you're not in the top 5-10% and still think you're "winning", you need to reevaluate your definition of winning. People with a million or less in retirement funds who have seen a bump in their 401ks, are not winning. They're still barely keeping up with inflation, but they think they're rich. They're rich only if they die young enough.