Trump Found "Not Guilty" of All Charges!

[saxitoxin]

The Court of Impeachment has acquitted President Donald J. Trump and found him not guilty of all charges, meaning he is totally exonerated as a point of law and fact. STILL WINNING. Another Rat fail!

[jusplay4fun]

Is anyone really surprised? I am certainly NOT.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

I would not characterize this vote as a reason to celebrate and feel worthy of gloating. It should be a sense of relief that the actions and speech of Trump were not sufficiently justifiable for conviction for an incitement for insurrection.

The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.

The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss. Five people died in the riot, including a police officer. Two other officers later killed themselves.

In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected

A majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But two-thirds, or 67 votes, was needed to convict. It was the second time Trump was acquitted in an impeachment trial.

The seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump on Saturday were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Trump is the first president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House twice, and the first to be tried for impeachment after leaving office.

In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected,.....

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again

[jimboston]

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

[Zieborn]

Imagine reality has an actual location. Imagine it's in, say, Florida. The "case" against Trump is located somewhere around the Andromeda Galaxy.

I wish Trump had been who they pretended he was. Ah well. The Tea Party and Ron Paul being maligned got them Trump. Really looking forward to what MAGA and Trump being maligned gets them. Hopefully it's Duterte.

[saxitoxin]

Hopefully it's Duterte.

I'm down with that.

[Zieborn]

Hopefully it's Duterte.

I'm down with that.

His campaign slogan could be "Duterte: I'm warming up the helicopters."

https://www.msn.com/en-in/lifestyle/lif ... vi-BBxFx3k

[2dimes]

[saxitoxin]

Hopefully it's Duterte.

I'm down with that.

His campaign slogan could be "Duterte: I'm warming up the helicopters."

https://www.msn.com/en-in/lifestyle/lif ... vi-BBxFx3k

[jusplay4fun]

It is BOTH.

1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.

2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.

BOTH.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

[BoganGod]

The dems are just sloppy at photoshop. Sad to see they couldn't even put some effort into their lies, show trials aren't much of a show if you can see the carnival magician's card tricks for what they are because he couldn't be arse rolling down his sleeves.

[saxitoxin]

Today was just another Monday in Palm Beach, Florida - capital of the legal government of the United States in exile - where thousands of people lined the streets to cheer President Donald J. Trump's motorcade on an afternoon drive. Meanwhile, Old Joe and his wife, Turkey Neck Jill, spent the day watching TV and eating microwavable dinners by themselves.

[jimboston]

It is BOTH.

1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.

2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.

BOTH.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?

You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.

This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.

[jusplay4fun]

More than 80% of my posts reflect thoughtful views. Most of yours are merely reactionary and lack significant thought. Your failure to realize or admit that the two positions are not mutually exclusive is one such indication.

It is BOTH.

1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.

2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.

BOTH.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?

You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.

This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.

[jimboston]

More than 80% of my posts reflect thoughtful views. Most of yours are merely reactionary and lack significant thought. Your failure to realize or admit that the two positions are not mutually exclusive is one such indication.

It is BOTH.

1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.

2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.

BOTH.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?

You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.

This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.

Yawn.

Also... how come you don;t seem to be able to follow the forum convention of putting the quote first?

[jusplay4fun]

Why put the OLD stuff first? The latest is usually more relevant, if one keeps up with the Forum.

And YOU want to maintain conventions? You seem to be one to try to disrupt and not conform, 80+% of the time.

More than 80% of my posts reflect thoughtful views. Most of yours are merely reactionary and lack significant thought. Your failure to realize or admit that the two positions are not mutually exclusive is one such indication.

It is BOTH.

1) It was predicted by news outlets I monitor. The likelihood of 17 GOP votes was slim to none.

2) The case the Democrats made to the Senate jurors was not good enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to convict Trump. They got 7 of 17 needed.

BOTH.

There were never 17 Republican votes in the Senate to convict and the Democrats failed to make a case worthy of conviction.

Which is it?

Were there NEVER 17 Republican votes?
-or-
Did the Democrats fail to make a case?

I mean people like to claim “it’s both” in cases like this... but it really is only one.

If they were never going to get the 17 votes... which they weren’t, and which they knew... then the case made (or lack thereof) is moot.

The case presented was not intended to change the minds of Senators... because that wasn’t going to happen.
The case presented was a show for political purposes designed almost solely to pander to the Democratic base.
If there was a chance they actually could get the votes, the case would’ve been presented with that goal in mind.

So the case wouldn’t have been made differently if there was actually a real chance of getting the Republicans to flip?

You fall down on the right side of the argument 80% of the time... but your points are always so generically obvious or just dumb.

This point you made is just bland mimicry of mainstream news.

Yawn.

Also... how come you don;t seem to be able to follow the forum convention of putting the quote first?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.

[jusplay4fun]

I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.

I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.

Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.

[saxitoxin]

I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.

I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.

He's not wading in anymore - he just pushed his way to the front of the queue for the diving board. There's not enough Kool-Aid on Earth for him to drink.

[jimboston]

I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.

I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.

Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.

I don’t need you to be fair.

Thanks

[saxitoxin]

As a loyal, armband-wearing Bidenist, Gym is trying to achieve the level of White Abolitionist but has only made it to White Critical so far.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/statu ... 6283003907

[jusplay4fun]

Fine then. You're an IDIOT....!

I was trying to be FAIR and give Jim-B the benefit of doubt.

I think he is going into the deeper "end" on a more steep inclined path, now.

Are you just now coming to this conclusion? Lol.

I don’t need you to be fair.

Thanks

[Falkomagno]

and with this, we can conclude that the whole trump chapter is going to fade away from the media, as the trainwreck it was...

[Sackett58]

As Hillary Clinton created Donald Trump so has Donald Trump created Joe Biden.

[saxitoxin]

and with this, we can conclude that the whole trump chapter is going to fade away from the media, as the trainwreck it was...

The GOP’s choice in 2024: Trump Ultra, Trump Lite or Trump Zero

Trump, the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, is the party's undisputed leader at the moment, and for the foreseeable future. At least eight 2024 hopefuls will speak at CPAC, the conservative movement’s premier conference this weekend in Florida, giving Republicans their clearest look yet at who’s competing in the traditional GOP presidential lanes.

But there’s only one lane that really matters: the one currently occupied by former President Donald Trump.

Trump Ultra - There’s a saying by some in Trump’s orbit that “if you’re with him 99 percent of the time, you’re a damn traitor” — a testament to the absolute, unwavering loyalty he demands. Those purity and loyalty tests make the Trump Ultra lane one of the toughest to run in.

Trump Lite - The Trump Lite lane is populated by candidates who have put any daylight — however little — between themselves and the former president.

Trump Zero - “It’s probably not even a lane,” Kochel said. “It’s more like a gravelly shoulder on the side of the mountain that’s about to crumble into the ocean.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/2 ... ump-471565

[Falkomagno]

and with this, we can conclude that the whole trump chapter is going to fade away from the media, as the trainwreck it was...

The GOP’s choice in 2024: Trump Ultra, Trump Lite or Trump Zero

Trump, the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, is the party's undisputed leader at the moment, and for the foreseeable future. At least eight 2024 hopefuls will speak at CPAC, the conservative movement’s premier conference this weekend in Florida, giving Republicans their clearest look yet at who’s competing in the traditional GOP presidential lanes.

But there’s only one lane that really matters: the one currently occupied by former President Donald Trump.

Trump Ultra - There’s a saying by some in Trump’s orbit that “if you’re with him 99 percent of the time, you’re a damn traitor” — a testament to the absolute, unwavering loyalty he demands. Those purity and loyalty tests make the Trump Ultra lane one of the toughest to run in.

Trump Lite - The Trump Lite lane is populated by candidates who have put any daylight — however little — between themselves and the former president.

Trump Zero - “It’s probably not even a lane,” Kochel said. “It’s more like a gravelly shoulder on the side of the mountain that’s about to crumble into the ocean.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/2 ... ump-471565

Well, yeah, it is still an issue to solve within the republicans, but that discussion is way less mediatic and less relevant for the rest of the world. Think how in the past 4 years every day there was outrageous news non-stop about trump, from kids in cages to hookers paid as legal fees, to denying global warming, to riots, etc...

Now it goes about the mild political discussion and its pettiness, way less present in the public mind.

My prediction is that by October Saxi will be posting about how terrible Biden is, barely mentioning trump.