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

«1

Comments

  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,870
    Still work to do, ladies.

    You'll need to smear your former hero, John Bolton.
  • insinceredawg
    insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    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.
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,870

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,870

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    That was the House's responsibility retard.

    Great goalpost moving as always
    Imagine requiring the President to comply with lawful process! Crazy talk!
  • PostGameOrangeSlices
    PostGameOrangeSlices Member Posts: 27,145
    edited January 2020
    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    That was the House's responsibility retard.

    Great goalpost moving as always
    Imagine requiring the President to comply with lawful process! Crazy talk!
    Imagine you saying anything of substance?

    Yeah, I cant imagine it either

    Fucking idiot
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,870

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.
    Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member Posts: 18,028
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.
    Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!
    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
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,870

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.
    Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!
    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?
    There was already plenty of evidence of the President's guilt. Hell. Much of it played out in public.

    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.
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member Posts: 18,028
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.
    Yes, the emperor's clothes are very impressive!
    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?
    There was already plenty of evidence of the President's guilt. Hell. Much of it played out in public.

    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.
    Evidence of what exactly? Do spell it out for us. Quid Pro Quo? oh, wait, no, "abuse of power".
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,034 Standard Supporter
    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.

    Fuck Off you lying pedophile POS.
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    Imagine thinking you had the evidence for impeachment in the first place without actually having any evidence.
    Are you calling this Republican senator a liar?

    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.
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,625 Standard Supporter
    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.
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    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.

    Trump did it. He could literally shoot someone in the street and you still wouldn't remove him from office.

    I feel that's more what the founders feared. But you do you.
  • pawz
    pawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,417 Founders Club

    HHusky said:

    Imagine having a trial and not allowing any witnesses then getting mad when accused of a cover up.

    Imagine still believing this is anything but a partisan exercise by the Dems.
    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.)
    You're such a faggot. You sound like some little girl whore dipshit. DADDY
    Sound ?