Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Breaking Murkowski comes out against impeachment witnesses, putting Trump on path to acquittal
Comments
-
Well then you shouldn't need anymore witnesses.HHusky said:
There was already plenty of evidence of the President's guilt. Hell. Much of it played out in public.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Someone's mad today. It seems like they probably should have had a fairly airtight case before leaving the House. I mean, that's what they did with Nixon. Why the need for new witnesses in the Senate?HHusky said:
Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.HHusky said:
So we can't find out the details of Daddy's abuses until we determine that everyone asking for the truth has only pure motives. (The Constitution as "living, breathing document", I guess.)UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.insinceredawg said:Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
It's okay though. It's probably better for his opponents that the facts roll out like a hand of cards. In a few months or years, you'll all be "adjusting" your positions on this and it will be impossible to find anyone who will admit to defending Daddy. -
Fuck Off you lying pedophile POS.GDS said:You gotta love Murkowski's argument. She admits there is no way the GOP will give the President's wrongdoing a fair trial so fuck it, why bother calling witnesses. At least she's honest that there is no act the President could undertake at this point that the GOP won't coverup for him.
-
Are you calling this Republican senator a liar?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.HHusky said:
So we can't find out the details of Daddy's abuses until we determine that everyone asking for the truth has only pure motives. (The Constitution as "living, breathing document", I guess.)UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.insinceredawg said:Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced Thursday night he will vote against calling witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. “It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Alexander said, adding that the president’s actions were the kind that “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”
“But,” he added, “the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”
"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday,” Alexander said. -
The whole thing was a ridiculous abuse of the impeachment process by the dems. Exactly what the founders feared. This is election meddling as well.
I want to see the secret 18th witness transcript. Shitt should not be able to withhold evidence. Especially when it shows he knew the whistle blower and set up the whole thing. -
Trump did it. He could literally shoot someone in the street and you still wouldn't remove him from office.Sledog said:The whole thing was a ridiculous abuse of the impeachment process by the dems. Exactly what the founders feared. This is election meddling as well.
I want to see the secret 18th witness transcript. Shitt should not be able to withhold evidence. Especially when it shows he knew the whistle blower and set up the whole thing.
I feel that's more what the founders feared. But you do you. -
You're such a faggot. You sound like some little girl whore dipshit. DADDYHHusky said:
So we can't find out the details of Daddy's abuses until we determine that everyone asking for the truth has only pure motives. (The Constitution as "living, breathing document", I guess.)UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.insinceredawg said:Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
-
Sound ?DuckHHunterisafag said:
You're such a faggot. You sound like some little girl whore dipshit. DADDYHHusky said:
So we can't find out the details of Daddy's abuses until we determine that everyone asking for the truth has only pure motives. (The Constitution as "living, breathing document", I guess.)UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.insinceredawg said:Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
-
-
Tough
dayweekmonthyear4 years for the Democrats man. -
which is it?HHusky said:
There was already plenty of evidence of the President's guilt. Hell. Much of it played out in public.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Someone's mad today. It seems like they probably should have had a fairly airtight case before leaving the House. I mean, that's what they did with Nixon. Why the need for new witnesses in the Senate?HHusky said:
Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.HHusky said:
So we can't find out the details of Daddy's abuses until we determine that everyone asking for the truth has only pure motives. (The Constitution as "living, breathing document", I guess.)UW_Doog_Bot said:
Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.insinceredawg said:Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
It's okay though. It's probably better for his opponents that the facts roll out like a hand of cards. In a few months or years, you'll all be "adjusting" your positions on this and it will be impossible to find anyone who will admit to defending Daddy.
