“Lindsey Graham Warns Not to Allow 'QAnon Shaman' Impeachment Testimony”

Bill said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yep.......

Simply take his first four lies on the first question & spend the day unraveling it for him & then rub his nose in it..

I hope he takes Steve's advice.............:cool:
Click to expand...

I suppose a lot of us do.

He's just stupid enough to do it.
 
archives said:
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has warned against allowing "QAnon Shaman" Jacob Chansley to testify at former President Donald Trump's unprecedented second impeachment trial.”

“Chansley, also known as Jake Angeli, is facing multiple charges for his participation in the insurrection that the article of impeachment alleges the former president incited on January 6. Although Graham denounced the House for impeaching Trump on January 13 without calling any witnesses, on Friday the senator said that allowing witnesses at the Senate trial could lead to a lengthy "circus" featuring testimony from the likes of Chansley.”

"I cannot think of a better way to turn the upcoming impeachment trial into a complete circus than to call the QAnon Shaman as a witness on anything," Graham tweeted. "The House impeached President Trump without a witness. If we open the witness door in the Senate there will be lots of witnesses requested on a variety of topics. And the trial will go for months, not days."

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-gr...-testimony-says-trial-could-go-months-1565556

So Lindsey attacks the House for not calling witnesses and now attacks the Senate for calling witnesses?

That “circus” Lindsey is concerned about is the MAGA militia, the Trump supporters, the same voting bloc the likes of Lindsey spends time courting and kissing Trump’s ass to keep on his side. About time Lindsey met his supporters up close

Think of the theater, especially if they have the Shaman show up in full uniform
Click to expand...

Democrats should listen to Lindsey lol.

Frankly, I’m ok with it coming off as a circus. In a non-Kangaroo trial, the prosecution would be in no hurry to place the Shaman on the witness stand. His manner of dress doesn’t exactly shout ‘credible witness’. Even if he shows up in a tie and suit, the Shaman image is imprinted in peoples minds.

That loon is an obvious social media attention whore. What do they call them? Influencers? He’s going to say whatever gets him the most attention. Possibly a book deal if he plays his cards right.

But since the Democrat’s arguments are going to be short on facts and long on emotional appeal, maybe the Shaman would fit right in.

Go for it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay...so you are going to pretend the question cannot be answered in order to justify your not answering it.

I expected the slithering...so, no problemo.
Click to expand...

No, it can't be answered.

We don't know his defense because he hasn't presented it yet unless you are claiming you can read the future.

But since you apparently have seen this future defense, with new lawyers by the way, why don't you tell us what exactly it will be.
 
Tinker said:
No, it can't be answered.

We don't know his defense because he hasn't presented it yet unless you are claiming you can read the future.

But since you apparently have seen this future defense, with new lawyers by the way, why don't you tell us what exactly it will be.
Click to expand...

The question as I asked it CAN BE ANSWERED.

If you want to answer, answer. If you don't...okay with me.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no way the House managers will ever call those people to testify.

What the House managers will do is to use video and clips from their Tweets as evidence against Trump. There is an abundance of that kind of thing.

Then if Trump's lawyers want to call them...let them.

Oh, please, please, please let that happen.

(Although I doubt even someone as ignorant as Giuliani would do something that stupid.)
Click to expand...

Those rioters who were caught by the FBI are using "I was following orders from Trump" as a defense. They will be good witnesses. They are claiming they were under Trump's spell. That did not work in Nuremberg.
 
Last edited:
Tinker said:
No, it can't be answered.

We don't know his defense because he hasn't presented it yet unless you are claiming you can read the future.

But since you apparently have seen this future defense, with new lawyers by the way, why don't you tell us what exactly it will be.
Click to expand...

Yes he has presented it. You apparently aren't paying attention. His response once again advances the theory that hey, there is no proof that Trump didn't actually win. Which is interesting, since there is all kinds of proof. It's called 300+ electoral votes.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.n...ts-Answer-to-Article-of-Impeachment-Final.pdf
 
Darth Omar said:
Democrats should listen to Lindsey lol.

Frankly, I’m ok with it coming off as a circus. In a non-Kangaroo trial, the prosecution would be in no hurry to place the Shaman on the witness stand. His manner of dress doesn’t exactly shout ‘credible witness’. Even if he shows up in a tie and suit, the Shaman image is imprinted in peoples minds.

That loon is an obvious social media attention whore. What do they call them? Influencers? He’s going to say whatever gets him the most attention. Possibly a book deal if he plays his cards right.

But since the Democrat’s arguments are going to be short on facts and long on emotional appeal, maybe the Shaman would fit right in.

Go for it.
Click to expand...

Your assumptions and speculations are as inaccurate as they are lame. Did you go to the Marjorie Taylor Green School of Bullshit?

iu
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Truly. Trotting out fucking nutjobs will make whomever is using them as witnesses look stupid. He'd never hold up under testimony. Better to just get a deposition out of him and ship his ass off to the looney bin.
Click to expand...
He’s eccentric but his testimony would show just how off the rails Trump’s base is and they really would allow him to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave., especially if it were Pelosi, Obama or Clinton.
 
Phantasmal said:
He’s eccentric but his testimony would show just how off the rails Trump’s base is and they really would allow him to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave., especially if it were Pelosi, Obama or Clinton.
Click to expand...

Putting an insane person on the stand only gives the Trump team ammunition to say "Look, he's insane. It doesn't matter what he says since he's insane."

That helps Trump, not hurts him. If I give a speech and say "We need to Make America Great Again" and some fucking moron blows up a federal building, is that my fault? No, it's not. Insane people are insane and their actions and testimony can't be trusted.

Does anyone on this forum recall a case where a person was convicted based on the testimony of a mental patient?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Putting an insane person on the stand only gives the Trump team ammunition to say "Look, he's insane. It doesn't matter what he says since he's insane."

That helps Trump, not hurts him. If I give a speech and say "We need to Make America Great Again" and some fucking moron blows up a federal building, is that my fault? No, it's not. Insane people are insane and their actions and testimony can't be trusted.

Does anyone on this forum recall a case where a person was convicted based on the testimony of a mental patient?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s insane. I think he’s eccentric, you know there is a difference.
 
Nobody knows how he would look in testimony. He may be able to acquit himself well in court. But he was captivated by Trump and Q. the Republiqanon party owns him and the others who attacked the capitol. They were not Dems and they ended up with 5 deaths.
The dens have requested Trump to testify under oath, That would show you real craziness, but be a captivating show.Trump is nuts enough to want to do it. His lawyers will block it.
 
Tinker said:
So if all the evidence has been shown then what is the trial for?

Why not just vote hmmmmm?
Click to expand...

I didn't say all the evidence had been shown. I said trump presented his case in the form of written answers to the complaint. The trial is for the JURY to hear the evidence. Is this a challenge for you to understand? Would little pictures help?
 
Concart said:
I didn't say all the evidence had been shown. I said trump presented his case in the form of written answers to the complaint. The trial is for the JURY to hear the evidence. Is this a challenge for you to understand? Would little pictures help?
Click to expand...

So the evidence hasn't been presented to a jury which means they haven't seen it which means it hasn't been presented yet and on top of that you just admitted it wasn't all the evidence so no they have not presented their case.

Those little responses are not sworn testimony or do you think they are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top