Click the link below for an example of the type of Nazi "justice" that Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, and the rest of the D.C. criminals want for all of us.
Posted on 12/08/2019 11:45:49 AM PST by Kaslin
Well, you lost on the collusion charges, and you lost when you cross examined Mueller. so........I’m not holding my breath on this either. Democrats have failed miserably on trying to removed Trump.
Well, that may keep their based fires up, but it’ll do the same to Trump’s and turn off most indies.
Then stop wasting tax dollars and subjecting such a monster of a president on the country. Bring it on, big boy.
Nadler:....A ‘Jury’ Would Convict in ‘Three Minutes Flat’...
Tell that to the Senate and see how far you go...
Understood. Third would status is evident all over however. Not hidden behind anything. Alas
He knows the amateur journalists he speaks to will lap it up and run with it.
Click the link below for an example of the type of Nazi "justice" that Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, and the rest of the D.C. criminals want for all of us.
Just like a Nazi or Stalinist kangaroo court.
Well to be fair, that’s two minutes longer than it would take to get the beating of his life if he walked alone down Main Street USA.
So long as the other side cannot call up witnesses or cross-examine testimony as it is given, why, yes, a “conviction” is a pretty sure thing.
Only this is an impeachment, which is analogous to an indictment, and not a trial.
Some one needs to tell Nadler that the jury pool isn’t The View.
Three minutes to convict, yeah, that’s ‘s right, LARD@SS.
He needs to stick to his areas of true expertise—like stuffing his bloated fat face with food.
He’d probably be right — if the jury was pooled from Washington, DC.
Lets see that idiot Nadler put his money where his mouth is.
Problem for us is this creep is in a safe Rat district where there is no way he can be thrown out of the house.
The BS is strong with this one.
Is it the same kind of direct evidence that Schitt always said he had on Trump colluding with Russia but could never produce?
The only evidence I have seen so far is indirect evidence from 2nd hand hearsay, gossip, opinions and hurt feelings from diplomats who didn't like the approach Trump was using with Ukraine.
Every one of those witnesses denied ever hearing Trump try to extort the Ukrainian president or threaten to withhold aid. All of their testimony was about being upset that he was not carrying out US foreign policy like THEY wanted him to.
Clue: Diplomats work for the president, no the other way around. And getting your butt and feelings hurt is not considered evidence of a crime committed by Trump.
Even their whistleblower, who never testified, came forward only after the rules for whistleblowers was changed to include 2nd and 3rd hand information and after he was coached and rehearsed by Schitt's staff.
The only direct, first hand evidence is the transcript from Trump's phone call, which clears him of any crime. And Schitt's "parody" version of the transcript doesn't count as anything other than a joke.
I would like to see a proper trial in the Senate so Trump finally has a way to defend himself and tell his side of the story. Otherwise, the democRATS will spin a quick dismissal as a victory politically by saying the Republicans can't defend Trump.
The Stalin Show Trialz were the same way
The jury is the Senate and they are going to pass on conviction in 3 minutes flat.
I think the case we have, if presented to a jury [composed entirely of left wing Democrats], would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat.
A more accurate analogy would be “the neighbor’s cousin’s barber said”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.