It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

dems won't accept acquittal. No, really

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:55 AM
link   
www.foxnews.com...


Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump's impeachment proceedings that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.


Schumer is trying to show just how stupid he really is. Pelosi won't accept an acquittal. Yet, they didn't call these witnesses when they were doing the house investigation. This is crazy town. It's like the left projects it's feelings on others only to have to accept their feelings in the end.

I wonder if someone will point out to them that they rushed the impeachment and did a poor job with it.

The house with a majority impeached. It's what they wanted to do. They have the power to do just that. The Senate has the power to try to impeachment. They don't have to listen to anyone else but the constitution, and they did. All the tears, and all the anger won't change those facts. So while impeachment is forever, so it Acquittal.




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I would accept acquittal.

In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.

Long may he reign.


+26 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I still cant believe trump was impeached over hearsay and a secret whistleblower. Just dont seem right.


+19 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:06 PM
link   
That's what happens when you do a # job of preparing your case in court.

No excuses to be had for the dems, as they made up the rules, gave no access while in their private basement war room building their case, and didnt bother to include witnesses or actual evidence in their case.

Wtf do they expect?
edit on 31-1-2020 by Notoneofyou because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted2

The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I am looking down the road when eventually, a Dem gets elected.

I cant wait to come back and bring up old snip here.

Then again will ATS even exist 12 years from now?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   
To paraphrase that drunken stand up comedien, you can't fix insane.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted2
I would accept acquittal.

In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.

Long may he reign.


There was plenty of opportunity for the house to gather information and call witnesses. As the majority leaders made clear they were in control and had overwhelming evidence. If all the evidence was in and so damning what's the point of muddying the water with more witnesses?

They could have said they were willing to let Joe and Hunter testify and I'm sure the POTUS would have been fine with it. Then the whistleblower could have testified and purjured himself followed by Schiff and another purjury.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:22 PM
link   
All the dumb bell Democrats had to do was call these same "witnesses" during their own hearings !!

Almost like they had this planned. Planned except for the backfire 😆


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I was on a jury once. If the prosecutor had expected me to do his job for him, I would have laughed in his face. Probably literally.
edit on 31-1-2020 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Admitted2
I would accept acquittal.

In a trial without witnesses, what else could there be? We see and hear no facts.

Long may he reign.


There was plenty of opportunity for the house to gather information and call witnesses. As the majority leaders made clear they were in control and had overwhelming evidence. If all the evidence was in and so damning what's the point of muddying the water with more witnesses?

They could have said they were willing to let Joe and Hunter testify and I'm sure the POTUS would have been fine with it. Then the whistleblower could have testified and purjured himself followed by Schiff and another purjury.


This guy has already gone through 15+ pages of posters telling him this. Then asked for his account to be deleted only to make a new one. There's no helping him, he has no arguments, he'll just repeat the same "muh witnesses".



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2

The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.


There was no trial in the house. The trial happens in the senate.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

They didn't accept the outcome of the election.

Their coup attempt (this time) has failed once again.

And personally, I could give a tinkers damn what they like/dislike, accept/not accept.

They aren't ####ing royalty and their opinions have no bearing on this sham.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Notoneofyou
That's what happens when you do a # job of preparing your case in court.


They made OJ's prosecutors look good.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

As a fellow American who wants facts. Why can't Schiff,the whistleblower, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney...ALL testify under oath?

Do we just not want truth? We just want this drama?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Perhaps Shifty Adam Schiff will get an Emmy for his performance as a consolation prize.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted2

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2

The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.


There was no trial in the house. The trial happens in the senate.


You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Good luck with your new account Admitted.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

President Trump.

Acquitted FOREVER.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted2

Because there’s one thing they fear more than trump, and that’s having to tell the truth under oath.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Admitted2

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Admitted2

The trial already happened in the House. The Senate just votes on the evidence the house has gathered whether to remove the president or not. Bolton could’ve been called as a witness in the House but they wanted to rush impeachment as a campaign tool because doing it the legal way would’ve taken to long and the 2020 election would already be over. It’s the only reason they rushed the impeachment vote.


There was no trial in the house. The trial happens in the senate.


Except, it is true.

The trial happens in the Senate.

I'm shocked my "new" account isn't delete yet, lol.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Good luck with your new account Admitted.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join