The U.S. Senate opened the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump with quiet ceremony Thursday — senators standing at their desks to swear an oath of “impartial justice” as jurors, House prosecutors formally reciting the charges and Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.From both of their statements in the weeks leading up to the impeachment hearing, they have made up their minds and they have zero intention of obeying their oaths.
Fat chance that'll happen.
Donald J. Trump, lawbreaker.
The White House violated federal law in withholding security assistance to Ukraine, an action at the center of President Donald Trump’s impeachment, a federal watchdog agency said Thursday.Apparently Trump has hired one of the attorneys that got OJ off for killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend (and who helped Jeffry Epstein avoid serious jail time).
7 comments:
Like any of the House Dems hadn't already chosen how they were gonna vote before the hearings?
Marsha Blackburn wants the Democratic senators running for the presidency to recuse themselves. She thinks Mitch and Lindsey are just ducky.
-Doug in Oakland
What part of “the Ukrainian funds were delayed illegally” don’t you understand, B?
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796976902/gao-trump-broke-budget-law-when-he-froze-ukraine-funds
... and wasn't Starr involved in a sex scandal at Baylor ??
DRT:
That wasn't the statement of the original post. And it is a judgement call that this impeachment trial is designed to ...judge.
And here when y'all are losing an argument your side always claims I am "moving the goal post". Yet you have done just that.
I simply pointed out (to anyone with half a brain to see the inference...which include most (but apparently not all)) of the folks who comment here)that these House Dems had already decided to impeach and the :hearings" were a waste of time....and that damning the Senate Repubs for apparently having made up their minds is kinda disingenuous.....
McConnell is on record saying that he will not be an impartial juror. Then he swore an oath to do impartial justice.
So he is lying. Seems to me that the best way to resolve this is to try him for perjury.
Everyone has seen the evidence, such as there is. The 'jury pool' is tainted, sure, but there aren't any alternates.
If you believe Schumer et al. are undecided, say so. I will then laugh.
And who called for Obama's head when the GAO found he broke the law in 2014, in particular?
Yes, I dislike both sides, at least since the bipartisan House banking scandal.
Post a Comment