Roger Stone Found Guilty on 7 Counts

TreeFrogTrader said:
Not really. The word "acquit" is commonly used even by Senate historians in regard to previous impeachments.

However, I have already done a rather lengthy post on why the shorthand description of the impeachment process mirroring an indictment and a trial is limited so I dont have a hard-on about defending that terminology but neither have I erred in doing so. I will leave that anal stuff to those who have nothing else to put forth.

Meanwhile, from the Senate website, note the use of the word "acquit."

You are welcome but as always you should cut down on the snarky stuff and take notes when others post.

On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35 to 19 to remove President Andrew Johnson from office—one vote short of the necessary two-thirds. For many of these 54 senators, this was unquestionably the single most difficult vote of their congressional careers. Seven Republican senators—William Pitt Fessenden, James Grimes, Edmund Ross, Peter Van Winkle, John B. Henderson, Joseph Fowler, and Lyman Trumbull—courageously defied their party's leadership and voted with the 12 Democratic senators to acquit the president—thereby saving him and, possibly, the institution of the presidency.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistor...enate_Votes_on_a_Presidential_Impeachment.htm
More...

Ok. I concede but I would not use that term because it is a political process.
 
UsualName said:
Ok. I concede but I would not use that term because it is a political process.
More...
NO NO NO-----it is not a political process. That is why the Framers put the Senate review/trial in The Constitution-----for the precise reason to keep it from being a political process. ---Now granted, what you have in The House right now is political and political only, but that is why The Senate has a check on The House. ---And that check is a big one at 67% for conviction/removal. The State are on equal footing as well in The Senate so you don't have a few big states removing the president. ---Which is what's being attempted in The House right now. (California, New York et al).
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
NO NO NO-----it is not a political process. That is why the Framers put the Senate review/trial in The Constitution-----for the precise reason to keep it from being a political process. ---Now granted, what you have in The House right now is political and political only, but that is why The Senate has a check on The House. ---And that check is a big one at 67% for conviction/removal. The State are on equal footing as well in The Senate so you don't have a few big states removing the president. ---Which is what's being attempted in The House right now. (California, New York et al).
More...

You dumbshit, neither the senators nor the house members are unbiased and neutral jurors because they are elected politicians.

Impeachment is a political process.
 
UsualName said:
You dumbshit, neither the senators nor the house members are unbiased and neutral jurors because they are elected politicians.

Impeachment is a political process.
More...
NO NO NO---- it is not. If it was, you wouldn't have the Senate trial where the weight of each state is 2 percent of the total and there is a prosecution and a defense and then a 67% vote needed for removal. The Senate trial is the check on The House to prevent it from being a political process.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Roger Stone was prosecuted more aggressively than Jeffrey Epstein, that tells you all you need to know about the rule of law in America.

242 replies 3,571 retweets 9,287 likes
More...

Trump's buddy Acosta cut him the deal. Sure tells me all I need to know about the rule of law in America under this administration.

Frederick Foresight said:
When he goes, he's going to go down hard.
More...
1.7110279.1690945972.gif

zrSG2QI.png
 
Last edited:
AAAintheBeltway said:
Mike Cernovich‏Verified account@Cernovich 3h3 hours ago


Roger Stone was prosecuted more aggressively than Jeffrey Epstein, that tells you all you need to know about the rule of law in America.

242 replies 3,571 retweets 9,287 likes
More...
It can be argued that the Crimes of Stone, and especially those of Trump, are far, far more damaging than the crimes of Epstein. Working against an entire nation in favor of authoritarianism over democracy and the rule of law is as serious a crime one can commit in a democratic republic. In the Nixon affair , many thought that Nixon's crime was of this sort. And now, Trump's crime is, at its core, the same. There are no better words than Nixon's own to describe it: "When the President does it, it is not illegal."

Of course, on the surface Trump's crime is very different from Nixon's. Trump is guilty of being a foreign asset for personal gain, and all the other crimes that that has entailed; Nixon tried to cover up a petty crime, and in the process committed crimes against the Republic far worse than the original.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top