Futurama Fry

And yet they did it anyway. Not their money out of their pockets. Now prosecute the people who actually broke into the capital.

I agree it was a waste of money, and time.

Agreed

Okay, so let's say this was a trial of a private citizen who used to be the President.

The fact that the Presider happened to be a judge, witness, AND juror all at once would make any criminal court case illegitimate.

Not to mention, the dems have been caught falsifying evidence. If this is a case against a private citizen, the impeachment managers should be held accountable for their actions too.

Not a criminal court case. It's an impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanours.

Okay, then Chief Justice Roberts was supposed to be the one presiding, thus the whole case was illegitimate. So either way, this trial never should've happened.

You can't have it both ways. You can't jump back and forth from criminal case of a private citizen to impeachment of a president as long as it fits the narrative.

No, read the Constitution. Chief Justice only presides when it's the sitting president who's getting impeached. Impeach means to charge with misconduct.

"Impeach means to charge with misconduct." - So that's the first thing that you've written here that I agree with.

Trump was charged twice and never convicted. Please teach that to your leftist friends.

https://twitter.com/JenLawrence21/status/1359623622206267392

Regardless of whether it's an impeachment or not, it's all a sham anyway.

Dems falsified evidence. This was never about justice. This was never about unifying the country by making something "right". This is them trying to look for their "I was right" moment at the taxpayer's expense.

So you can keep arguing that this trial was legitimate all you want, but every one of those demorats and rinos in the house and senate lied to us. It's about time THEY start being held accountable for it.

It definitely was legitimate. The Constitution is very clear on that. And I'm not convinced you even knew what an impeachment was so what makes you think I'm interested in your legal assessment?

4xp8a9.jpg [image not found]

You missed my point, didn't you?

Forget about the legitimacy for one second. If you want to disagree with me about whether the trial was permissible, that's fine.

But it still doesn't change the fact that the impeachment managers were caught lying. And no one is talking about that. Their "evidence" consisted of nothing but tweets, op-eds, and edited videos missing minutes of important context.

Even if the trial was legit, the so-called "proof" was not.

BTW: this isn't a "legal assessment", it's basic observation. Any fool could've seen what dems were bringing forward and know that it wouldn't have been enough.

You could try writing that down to Trump's lawyers. They're not very good, though, so I don't think that would get you anything. To be honest, I think your only real option here is to cry into a bucket about it.

Well, when you're done crying into yours because you're still crying over Trump being acquitted, then maybe I'll consider doing that. (Though I probably won't because I'm not some pussy that's afraid of things not going my way)

BTW: thank you for finally bringing up a point I agree with. You're right, Trump's lawyers during this trial were awful. Even though I agreed with everything they were saying, it still hurt to listen to them speak.

What about the case solid, may I ask?

Nobody else but them would do it. You know why? Because they all knew that the case against him was solid and the only saving aspect of the case was the partisan nature of the verdict.