Oh no. They wanted a full impeachment and they got it.
Therefore history and the record must now show that they failed to make the case and the defendant was acquitted on all charges.
giggle.
Impeachment 2.0
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Oh no. They wanted a full impeachment and they got it.
Therefore history and the record must now show that they failed to make the case and the defendant was acquitted on all charges.
giggle.
A vote on party lines really does not prove anything for either side. Clinton lied and was acquitted too.... see it proves nothing.
Clinton lied and was acquitted of committing a high crime and misdemeanor warranting removal. Those two facts are not at odds.
You say the party line vote does not prove anything. Really? It absolutely proves that he was acquitted. Whether you agree with their basis for forming a judgement is neither here nor there. Perhaps you have lost track of the fact that getting a finding of guilty or an acquittal is actually the most important factor in a jury trial.
You are so incredibly gullible. LMAO
If by that, you mean that I am Pro-American and believe outlets that support that and that I don't pay attention to gaslighting such as yours, then yes guilty as charged.
I think that's true, but because of bad prosecution and not because of party affiliation.
The articles of impeachment, https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/c.../documents/ARTICLES - Final 1030 - 011121.pdf, have
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the charge is saying Trump said some things on January 6 that caused the riots. That means all the other things he did before January 6 (other than publicizing the rally) and his attitude after the riots started are irrelevant for the charges.
Both the articles of impeachment and the evidence the House Managers presented at the trial left out that Trump told the people at the rally to be peaceful (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial)
The jurors, or at least the ones who had any chance of voting to acquit, probably knew of this before the trial.
So I think the case as presented was weak mostly because of the narrowness of the charges. The Democrats could probably have produced better charges, but they wrote them without thinking too much. At least they can say the won a majority vote, just like in 2016.
I think that's true, but because of bad prosecution and not because of party affiliation.
The articles of impeachment, https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/ARTICLES - Final 1030 - 011121.pdf, have
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the charge is saying Trump said some things on January 6 that caused the riots. That means all the other things he did before January 6 (other than publicizing the rally) and his attitude after the riots started are irrelevant for the charges.
Both the articles of impeachment and the evidence the House Managers presented at the trial left out that Trump told the people at the rally to be peaceful (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial)
The jurors, or at least the ones who had any chance of voting to acquit, probably knew of this before the trial.
So I think the case as presented was weak mostly because of the narrowness of the charges. The Democrats could probably have produced better charges, but they wrote them without thinking too much. At least they can say the won a majority vote, just like in 2016.
The charges are not limited to just what he said on Jan 6th so to say everything he did before January 6 are irrelevant. That is not how criminal charges work when intent is involved.
Also, it does not matter what party you are from or what your view is of trump...... the jury was always voting mainly by party. GOP had acquittal before the impeachment even began and Dems had guilty.
It was not about weakness of either side......it was not an impartial jury and for impeachment it never is...same reason Clinton was impeached and acquitted.
A full examination of a full range of witnesses would have been necessary to establish intent.
The dems did not want to expose themselves and the process to a full examination even though they initially voted to do so. That's fine but that but that is their problem, not the defendant's. Never a good sign when the prosecution is interested in less evidence and testimony rather than more.
Yes---they were.