A lone adept walked the corridor towards the chamber of the High Lords of Terra, quietly mumbling the sacred words that had been entrusted to him for the ritual. The massive doors creaked open as he continued his silent pilgrimage into the heart of Terra. Kneeling before the council, he recited the divine verse that had been seared into his mind, "The house has impeached Donald Trump."
The High Lords burst out into incoherent accusations at each other. Entire sectors were thrown into chaos as careless edicts and commands were imposed on the Imperium. A hush fell suddenly across the room, as the Master of the Adminstrum finished the ritual, "With a vote of 7 to 5, and a super majority of 8 being required, the senate acquits Donald Trump."
As the adept left the room, he wondered to himself who Donald Trump was and why he couldn't stop winning.
I've already seen it spun as "solid bipartisan support says Trump is guilty of insurrection."
While parts of this statement are technically almost sort of bordering on true, it's incredibly misleading, incorrect and, you know, not how trials work.
But, yeah, I've honestly seen people claiming that the outcome of this sham "trial" declares Trump guilty of insurrection. It's batshit insane, but there you have it.
Also the only trial where the judge is also one of the jurors! And lets not even get into the legal miscarriage arguments that can be when said judge has already deemed the defendant guilty before the trial.
A solid bipartisan majority in both chambers of Congress finding Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection.
Now points to this option: 14th Amendment disqualification from future office for those who swore an oath and gave aid and comfort to insurrection.
And here is his bio:
Former Special Counsel @DeptofDefense. Co-editor-in-chief @just_security. Chaired Professor NYU Law. Former Chaired Professor Harvard Law. Co-director @RCLS_NYU
Just Security:
Forum on law, rights, and security. Editorial Board includes former senior government officials, top civil society attorneys, and law professors. Based
@nyulaw.
Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
After 4 years of endless mockery and hatred of Trump by the news media and entertainment mediums, you would think that maybe, just maybe, the normies would start thinking about whether the things Trump does or doesn’t do is actually worth getting mad about?
It’s exhausting thinking about how the media would never shut up about Trump, and I just can’t wrap my head around how the normies just accepted everything the media had to say as gospel.
It's one of those things when history looks back it's going to make them look so ridiculous. You're saying this President was bad enough to be impeached twice yet not enough to win either of the impeachment trials. It wasn't even a partisan thing, because I fully believe if he'd actually incited a riot at the capitol they'd have overwhelmingly voted on both side to remove the President from the office he'd already vacated. It didn't pass because it was bullshit.
Note: History looking back is under the extreme assumption that history is looking back fairly, not history written by the new world order.
Dems have to go for the hattrick. Come on, impeach him again! Trump cheated at golf or something.
The year is 2200, the democrats totally have him this time. Donald Trump X handles his proxy defense...
A lone adept walked the corridor towards the chamber of the High Lords of Terra, quietly mumbling the sacred words that had been entrusted to him for the ritual. The massive doors creaked open as he continued his silent pilgrimage into the heart of Terra. Kneeling before the council, he recited the divine verse that had been seared into his mind, "The house has impeached Donald Trump."
The High Lords burst out into incoherent accusations at each other. Entire sectors were thrown into chaos as careless edicts and commands were imposed on the Imperium. A hush fell suddenly across the room, as the Master of the Adminstrum finished the ritual, "With a vote of 7 to 5, and a super majority of 8 being required, the senate acquits Donald Trump."
As the adept left the room, he wondered to himself who Donald Trump was and why he couldn't stop winning.
... and what the rent rate was for headspace in these loons.
I wonder how normies are going to rationalize this.
I've already seen it spun as "solid bipartisan support says Trump is guilty of insurrection."
While parts of this statement are technically almost sort of bordering on true, it's incredibly misleading, incorrect and, you know, not how trials work.
But, yeah, I've honestly seen people claiming that the outcome of this sham "trial" declares Trump guilty of insurrection. It's batshit insane, but there you have it.
The only trial where the witnesses also get to be jurors!
Also the only trial where the judge is also one of the jurors! And lets not even get into the legal miscarriage arguments that can be when said judge has already deemed the defendant guilty before the trial.
According to the prosecution, the constitution and due process don't matter. That was literally his argument.
The Washington Post told me that an an anonymous source was briefed on someone who read the definition of hearsay, so I know what it is, stop asking.
Places American officials have argued the Constitution does not apply to excuse illegal conduct:
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Senate Chamber, District of Columbia.
I am aware, which was part of my point.
One might even refer to him as Leaky Leahy, based on his proclivity for telling "Chyna" everything he has access to.
That's ... that's very special logic.
"We're using the reason this shouldn't be an impeachment at all to not follow the rules for impeachments during this 'impeachment'."
So... not even the Vice President. It was the "President Pro Tempe of the Senate"?
Well, at least they had someone with a position of authority presiding over it.
It's the only trial I've seen where the original judge said, "Fuck it, I'm out"
i wonder if anyone's going to fall on the sword for putting fake evidence up
Here's bluecheck Ryan Goodman's statement:
And here is his bio:
Just Security:
@RCLS_NYU = Reiss Center on Law and Security.
That's certainly an interesting way to spin a "not guilty" verdict.
Perhaps such a standard should be applied to certain members of the current administration.
Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
Wait, you can't introduce new evidence in closing statements???
There's also a remarkable lack of success using "...but black!" as an argument in a more conventional judicial setting
"Despite his acquittal, he's mostly guilty!'
After 4 years of endless mockery and hatred of Trump by the news media and entertainment mediums, you would think that maybe, just maybe, the normies would start thinking about whether the things Trump does or doesn’t do is actually worth getting mad about?
It’s exhausting thinking about how the media would never shut up about Trump, and I just can’t wrap my head around how the normies just accepted everything the media had to say as gospel.
They'll just process it as an excuse to escalate their hatred and paranoia.
"I'm literally the only president in history, IN HISTORY, that they tried to remove twice, even while OUT OF OFFICE."
"They just can't quit me. SAD"
It's one of those things when history looks back it's going to make them look so ridiculous. You're saying this President was bad enough to be impeached twice yet not enough to win either of the impeachment trials. It wasn't even a partisan thing, because I fully believe if he'd actually incited a riot at the capitol they'd have overwhelmingly voted on both side to remove the President from the office he'd already vacated. It didn't pass because it was bullshit.
Note: History looking back is under the extreme assumption that history is looking back fairly, not history written by the new world order.
He literally tweeted for peaceful demonstration. Then Twitter took down the tweet. Then congress pretended the tweet didn't happen.
They did this to the president of the United States. Imagine what they can do to regular citizens.
'They had everything they could have wanted. And they still fuck it up.'
Sore winners ain't they? Not at all the actions of someone who won legitimately.
Time to break out this old thing
Please_tell_me_this_is_photoshopped.meme
No, he just has sexy abs naturally.