A trial without witnesses is unconstitutional.

Yes, no Republican wittiness in the House...unconstitutional.

Why are you loons still litigating a case that has already had a verdict...the defendant prevailed.

Stop sulking, get over it, move on.
 
Last edited:
LMAO... everyone heard the nonsense from the 'witnesses'. Schiff said they proved their case with those witnesses. The dems FEAR the actual witnesses. which is why they are fighting to hard to not let them be heard.

Why the need to lie SimpleFreak?
 
We keep asking Earl for the case he claims that the Supreme Court reversed an impeachment. He never can answer.
 
LMAO... everyone heard the nonsense from the 'witnesses'. Schiff said they proved their case with those witnesses. The dems FEAR the actual witnesses. which is why they are fighting to hard to not let them be heard.

Democrats said they had overwhelming evidence provided by witnesses to remove Trump. A trial, by definition, is an examination of evidence. No mention of witnesses.
 
We keep asking Earl for the case he claims that the Supreme Court reversed an impeachment. He never can answer.
More straw-men, Walter?

I posted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the word “House” in the Constitution means the full House.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5. The HOUSE of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article ...
 
Last edited:
I don’t have time to tutor you, Walter.

You still owe me 360 dollars for 4 hours previously.
 
I posted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the word “House” in the Constitution means the full House.

How many chances have we given Earl to name the case that he claims the Supreme Court ruled that only the full House could start investigations? He keeps repeating the same lie over, and over, and over again.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5. The HOUSE of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article ...

The House voted to impeach trump. There is absolutely no one who has a constitutional right to overturn that. The Supreme Court has no right to overturn that.

Now show me in the Constitution where it says anything about an impeachment investigation.

I know Neo-Nazi Earl will never believe this, but there are no secret Supreme Court decisions, and there are no secret parts of the Constitution.
 
I don’t have time to tutor you, Walter.

It would take no time whatsoever to write the name of the supposed case. Instead, you have wasted a week of everyone's time by repeating a lie you cannot back up.

You still owe me 360 dollars for 4 hours previously.

Typical Republicans who is uneducated white Christian male, with no work ethic demanding money for nothing. Try getting a job Earl. Or at least stating which Supreme Court case supposedly backs up your lies.
 
He actually deserves more. Trying to educate an 85 IQ, dumbass nigger like you is worth more than that.

CFM and Earl are at it again. They keep going on about how they "deserve" more for not working than people who work for a living.
 
Yes, no Republican wittiness in the House...unconstitutional.

Why are you loons still litigating a case that has already had a verdict...the defendant prevailed.

Stop sulking, get over it, move on.

You're darn right there was no republican "wittiness" in the House. None of them have a sense of humor. :rofl2:
 
I explained why he deserves more. That you're a fucking stupid nigger is why you didn't understand it. Read it or have some white person read it to you until you understand.

This "some other white man did something great, so I deserve money" argument is just sad. Why don't you and Earl try doing something rather than whining that those of us who work won't pay you?
 
Back
Top