Current Events > SO In an IMPEACHMENT trial about abuse of power and republicans want to say

(+) Yeah! (+)

His abuse of power is ok because its MAGA'ing? thus allowing an open door for FUTURE ABUSE OF POWER...

xD

are republican lawyers like douchebagowitz seriously this dumb now?

did you forget the point of the entire fucking trial
---

Derpowitz testimony was frankly stunning.

---

Just because the President is a PoS that abused his power does not mean its an impeachable offense.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Derpowitz testimony was frankly stunning.

stupidest fucking thing i've ever heard. and thats saying something after 3 years of the orange turd
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Derpowitz testimony was frankly stunning.

And also horrifying, because it's the exact kind of argument a dictator would make.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Derpowitz testimony was frankly stunning.

It was basically "it's legal because the president decided it was"

---

I just want them to call Bolton before the election. Thats the only hope they have to get rid of Trump. Sadly nobody atm could win.

Republicans only know how to abuse power for personal gain.

---

Bio1590 posted...

And also horrifying, because it's the exact kind of argument a dictator would make.

It's no secret Trump has dictator envy.

---

pres_madagascar posted...

It's no secret Trump has dictator envy.

he slurps Kim jong for fucks sake.

what kinda loser does that? xD
---

I love how derpowitz loves to pretend he is an anti-trump democrat who's only being "fair and impartial" here.

Dude spent years shilling for his maga boy on TV before this.

Isn't derpowitz teaching at harvard? How does harvard feel about this?

Coastal_elite posted...

Isn't derpowitz teaching at harvard? How does harvard feel about this?

if he brings in students (ie money) i doubt they care

is harvard typically left leaning like most colleges?
---

spudger posted...

if he brings in students (ie money) i doubt they care

is harvard typically left leaning like most colleges?

"facts have a liberal bias". A college is "left leaning" if they teach evolution, women's health or history. All academia is "left leaning" unless you're talking about bob hope university, liberty universirty and others like that

Coastal_elite posted...

"facts have a liberal bias". A college is "left leaning" if they teach evolution, women's health or history. All academia is "left leaning" unless you're talking about bob hope university, liberty universirty and others like that

youre getting wrapped in semantics

my point is, are they looking for rich republicans or actual smart students.
---

Gonna need to get some Trumpers in here to explain it to me.
---

spudger posted...

youre getting wrapped in semantics

my point is, are they looking for rich republicans or actual smart students.

I think they just cater to the elites, like all other ivy leagues. But just like all ivy leagues they're supposed to care a lot about having the best teachers and the smartest faculty in the planet.

You're not going to have Boogie teach nutrition or Ganondorf ethics because it takes away your credibility...

Phantom_Nook posted...

Gonna need to get some Trumpers in here to explain it to me.

you mean troll?
---

Coastal_elite posted...

You're not going to have Boogie teach nutrition or Ganondorf ethics because it takes away your credibility...

hopefully that means they fire douchebagowitz
---

Caution999 posted...

Honest discussion is not allowed on this websight. If you want an explanation, please contact the conservative posters off the site.

nothing you've said in support of him has been honest and there is no way to justify this
---

Beep Bep.

---

Caution999 posted...

Honest discussion is not allowed on this websight. If you want an explanation, please contact the conservative posters off the site.

Not sure why people want to have racist discussions on or off this website.

---

pres_madagascar posted...

It's no secret Trump has dictator envy.

Well yeah.

Half the Senate isn't supposed to support it though, but there was obviously too much faith placed in the system just "working" without the need for laws.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Well yeah.

Half the Senate isn't supposed to support it though, but there was obviously too much faith placed in the system just "working" without the need for laws.

trumps presidency proves our checks & balances do not work
---

Caution999 posted...

Beep Bep.

I thought the point of closing your 998 alt and using your Purely alt was to contain your shitposting
---

So you admit "beep bep" is shitposting?

I got some news for Error, lmao

Anyway, contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to be a trouble maker, so please let's stop the diversion of this topic and get back on track.

---

spudger posted...

trumps presidency proves our checks & balances do not work

you know what the biggest flaw in the system is? POTUS candidates do NOT have to go through a background check.

What good is it to make even janitors get top secret clearance if they're going to work in certain sensitive areas of government if the guy on top can be in debt with the russians and have pee pee tapes and stuff like that to compromise him?

spudger posted...

trumps presidency proves our checks & balances do not work

Yep.

So many "Wait, everyone else just did that in good faith and there's actually no law against what Trump is doing?" moments.

But then again, even if there was, the courts completely ignoring his continued and blatant violations of the emoluments clause doesn't guarantee anything else would be handled properly either.
---

Caution999 posted...

So you admit "beep bep" is shitposting?

I got some news for Error, lmao

Anyway, contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to be a trouble maker, so please let's stop the diversion of this topic and get back on track.

You haven't even said anything on topic yet.
---

*honks like a goose*

Contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to honk like a goose.

---

So a president can break all the laws and do whatever he wants as long as it is for the country according to an idiot?

---

checks and balances DO work. the senate is just choosing not to use it.

they can use their law-given power at whatever time they decide to.

it's not a problem with the checks and balances system, it's a problem with how campaign finance and re-elections work.

LightHawKnight posted...

So a president can break all the laws and do whatever he wants as long as it is for the country according to an idiot?

and according to most republican senators for whom now the deliberate ignoring of testimony might actually be used later as a defense in some future treason trial

---

Caution999 posted...

So you admit "beep bep" is shitposting?

I got some news for Error, lmao

Anyway, contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to be a trouble maker, so please let's stop the diversion of this topic and get back on track.

close your accounts and shut the fuck up

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

You haven't even said anything on topic yet.

this

he literally just came to shit post
---

It's not an impeachment about abuse of power. It's an impeachment because the Democrats are embarrassed they lost to trump and no matter what wanna get him out. Instead of you know, just winning an election. Or presenting likeable candidates. Or not trying to screw their only likeable candidate. Well aside from Tulsi but she don't have a chance.

---

lilJoe457 posted...

It's not an impeachment about abuse of power. It's an impeachment because the Democrats are embarrassed they lost to trump and no matter what wanna get him out. Instead of you know, just winning an election. Or presenting likeable candidates. Or not trying to screw their only likeable candidate. Well aside from Tulsi but she don't have a chance.

wrong
---

Actually Dersowitz point was abuse of power is vaguely defined and Clinton, Bush, Obama all were said by their opponents to have committed it.

So he is saying the framers didn't want those opponents to remove a president without proving a clearly defined crime.

In other words, he is saying to impeach Trump, they need to prove violation of actual legislature and not violation of an unwritten standard supposedly expected of the president.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Actually Dersowitz point was abuse of power is vaguely defined and Clinton, Bush, Obama all were said by their opponents to have committed it.

So he is saying the framers didn't want those opponents to remove a president without proving a clearly defined crime.

In other words, he is saying to impeach Trump, they need to prove violation of actual legislature and not violation of an unwritten standard supposedly expected of the president.

except most people agree that's not the standard for impeachment. high crimes and misdemeanors did not mean indictable crimes