Would a Criminal Trial be more fair than a Democrat House-Run Impeachment Hearing?

[DGUtley]

I think that a criminal trial run under our constitutional system would be far more fair than a impeachment hearing run by today's Democrats. I thought that I'd ask the other members here to weigh in. Knowing that we have some people here that can't respond intelligently, I have marked this thread as a "tpf" and will use it as I see fit.

[hanger4]

I believe it would. There would be no political grandstanding, just the facts ma'am.

[Common]

I say yes it woulds facts would be presented, there could be no campaigning for the cameras. I believe theres been enough dishonest displayed in this entire process since day one to demonstrate a criminal trial would be fairer

[Safety]

Was anyone caring about "fairness" during the previous instances of impeachment proceedings? I would go to Vegas with the bet that the answer would be "naw".

[mamooth]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.

[hanger4]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.Calling for an indictment and issuing an indictment are different animals. Mueller punted.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I think that a criminal trial run under our constitutional system would be far more fair than a impeachment hearing run by today's Democrats. I thought that I'd ask the other members here to weigh in. Knowing that we have some people here that can't respond intelligently, I have marked this thread as a "tpf" and will use it as I see fit.

There can't be a criminal trial against Trump.

That requires evidence.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Was anyone caring about "fairness" during the previous instances of impeachment proceedings? I would go to Vegas with the bet that the answer would be "naw".


I cared about fairness during the impeachment of that rapist bastard Clinton.

It was totally unfair that Juanita Broadrick's interview was stymied until the Senate voted to not hear all the evidence against the Rapist.

It was totally unfair that the people of the United States did not see all the evidence of Clinton's many crimes.

If things had been fair, the Rodents would have been kicked out of power then.

[Captdon]

I think that a criminal trial run under our constitutional system would be far more fair than a impeachment hearing run by today's Democrats. I thought that I'd ask the other members here to weigh in. Knowing that we have some people here that can't respond intelligently, I have marked this thread as a "tpf" and will use it as I see fit.

I agree that would be a good amendment. The problem is how to pick the jurors.

[Captdon]

Was anyone caring about "fairness" during the previous instances of impeachment proceedings? I would go to Vegas with the bet that the answer would be "naw".

That's what we want to change. If it was all on the up and up , no change would be needed. I thought that Clinton's impeachment was a disgrace as was Johnson's.

[Captdon]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.

Nonsense is just what this thread needed. I'm out of here.

[Lummy]

The wisdom among media conservatives is that Trump can't be tried for any crimes while he's in office. I think it was Levine I heard first noting that months ago and that since been parroted by other media conservatives. Apparently as things stand, it's impeachment or nothing, followed by dissolution of the democrat party when that fails and The Donald wins a second term by a landslide.

[Lummy]

Conservative talking heads are so giddy in their assurance that impeachment will shoehorn Trump back into the white house it makes me nervous. Nothing is assured in life, but they think it's a 110% done deal.

[Tahuyaman]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.
It's actually kind of funny to see a hard left wing type admit that they believe in guilty before evidence is presented.


Partisan hacks always expose themselves.

[DGUtley]

Was anyone caring about "fairness" during the previous instances of impeachment proceedings? I would go to Vegas with the bet that the answer would be "naw".

You would be wrong.

[Safety]

You would be wrong.

I disagree because I am able to guess pretty well the positions and arguments someone will attempt to debate based upon posting history and interaction. I am very skeptical that anyone suggesting that Trump would get a more fair trial outside of the House, would care about a fair trial for a politician outside of their ideology. I mean, I know objectivity exists in the world, but on a political forum, it’s very rare.

[MMC]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.

The Lame Stream Got Barr's statement on that. Which Mueller agreed on. Even stating Barr's good faith.


Oh and if you go by that BS.....let us know why Mueller was investigating Conspiracy/Collusion then. See if you can come up with an answer that is based on reality.

[MMC]

I think that a criminal trial run under our constitutional system would be far more fair than a impeachment hearing run by today's Democrats. I thought that I'd ask the other members here to weigh in. Knowing that we have some people here that can't respond intelligently, I have marked this thread as a "tpf" and will use it as I see fit.
As long as the Jury didnt have any illiberals. Then it would be possible.

[mamooth]

Nonsense is just what this thread needed. I'm out of here.

Whenever I post on any topic, you almost always jump in with some pouty troll comments.

It's really not necessary. Everyone on the board is already well aware of your butthurt over me. No need to keep beating on the topic.

[Hoosier8]

If facts were presented impartially, then obviously Trump goes to prison. After all, the only reason Mueller didn't call for indictment was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

So, in that way, I suppose a criminal trial would be fairer than the political process. Not much point in talking about it, though, as it can't happen under our current legal system.

Obviously? Mueller outlined no crimes. Barr and Rosenstein both agreed that Mueller did not have the evidence. Besides it requires criminal intent. What criminal intent would there be by objecting to a bogus investigation? How can obstruction be charged when the WH cooperated fully with Mueller?

[alexa]

Whenever I post on any topic, you almost always jump in with some pouty troll comments.

It's really not necessary. Everyone on the board is already well aware of your butthurt over me. No need to keep beating on the topic.
He's not a troll.

Trolls can only be liberals here.

[mamooth]

It's actually kind of funny to see a hard left wing type admit that they believe in guilty before evidence is presented.
What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.

You're doing that thing conservatives do where they pretend anyone disagreeing with them is "hard left" (or alternately "hateful"). That allows them to ignore the discussion which is causing them such painful cognitive dissonance.


Partisan hacks always expose themselves.

True dat, which is why this board is regarded as Republican partisan hack heaven. There's not an original thought to be found in any of the pretty little conservative heads, just talking points that have been handed down to them.

[MMC]

What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.

You're doing that thing conservatives do where they pretend anyone disagreeing with them is "hard left" (or alternately "hateful"). That allows them to ignore the discussion which is causing them such painful cognitive dissonance.



True dat, which is why this board is regarded as Republican partisan hack heaven. There's not an original thought to be found in any of the pretty little conservative heads, just talking points that have been handed down to them.

If there is so much evidence. Lets see you link up some.

[hanger4]

What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.You're doing that thing conservatives do where they pretend anyone disagreeing with them is "hard left" (or alternately "hateful"). That allows them to ignore the discussion which is causing them such painful cognitive dissonance.True dat, which is why this board is regarded as Republican partisan hack heaven. There's not an original thought to be found in any of the pretty little conservative heads, just talking points that have been handed down to them.*What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.* .............. You mean all that evidence Mueller couldn't make a decision about ?? Yeah, you run with that.

[MMC]

*What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.* .............. You mean all that evidence Mueller couldn't make a decision about ?? Yeah, you run with that.


What.....you don't think it will be able to find links of evidence. Damn.....and I thought it would at least try.

[Tahuyaman]

What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.

You're doing that thing conservatives do where they pretend anyone disagreeing with them is "hard left" (or alternately "hateful"). That allows them to ignore the discussion which is causing them such painful cognitive dissonance.



True dat, which is why this board is regarded as Republican partisan hack heaven. There's not an original thought to be found in any of the pretty little conservative heads, just talking points that have been handed down to them.


The evidence you speak of doesn’t exist. You are going on media speculation about how Trump “ May have” obstructed Justice. May have is not the same as “did obstruct”.

[Sergeant Gleed]

That's what we want to change. If it was all on the up and up , no change would be needed. I thought that Clinton's impeachment was a disgrace as was Johnson's.

We shouldn't impeach a politician who commits felony perjury while in office, and who then abuses the power of his office, to the point of bombing Camel's asses in Trashcanistan to control the news cycle coverage of his perjuries...and who authorized his Scretary if State to telephone a warning to Bin Laden that visitors will be on the way?

When should we impeach, if not for crimes like thst?

[Sergeant Gleed]

What are you babbling about? It's not like there's any shortage of evidence of Trump obstructing justice.

There's definitely a shortage of evidence on this thread.

I don't see you posting any, either.

Hard to do when none exists, anywhere.

[Don29palms]

There's definitely a shortage of evidence on this thread.

I don't see you posting any, either.

Hard to do when none exists, anywhere.

I would have to agree that no evidence is a huge shortage. Mamouth's delusions are not reality.

[Common Sense]

This is a list of ten instances where Trump's actions may be considered obstruction.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

[MMC]

This is a list of ten instances where Trump's actions may be considered obstruction.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

Yet Rosenstein, Barr and one other in the DOJ determined the alleged potential. Doesn't meet the standard of the Law. So CBS and the Leftist Lame Stream Media. Just doesn't get to make shit up.

[Peter1469]

Of course a criminal trial would be more fair than an impeachment. Impeachment is a political act.

[Sergeant Gleed]

This is a list of ten instances where Trump's actions may be considered obstruction.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

So, no evidence.

The firing of COMEY is a possible "obstruction" case?

You gotta be shitting me.

Like I said, y'all gots NOTHING.