ALF Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 I would be ok with the Senate not calling witnesses and then acquittal of Trump if they don't censor Bolton's book and let him talk freely to the media.
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 20 minutes ago, GG said: You're doing a great disservice to the argument that marijuana helps with cognitive thinking. Your position flips criminal law on its head. In your example, intent ONLY comes into play to ascertain the aspect of a crime that has been committed. You don't look at the intent before the crime occurred, otherwise you would be locking up people simple for having bad thoughts. Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it.
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Senator Alexander admits Trump is guilty of trying to rig the election, so he calls on the election as a remedy? What happens if and when he cheats yet again? Gleeful Gator, once again quoting something that must be out of context since he doesn't supply a link and/or it's merely one sentence. 1
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, ALF said: I would be ok with the Senate not calling witnesses and then acquittal of Trump if they don't censor Bolton's book and let him talk freely to the media. he will be called before the House PermaImpeachment next week.
SoCal Deek Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it. Oh please! I’m involved with public policy on the local level. Elected officials routinely are involved in things that later the Public Counsel tells the administrators that ‘they can’t do that’ because of some statute somewhere. Those officials are NOT kicked out of office! 1
GG Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Oh please! Keep it real. You know Trump stopped the plan only after being caught. The 'misdeed' was well in progress. It wasn't all just a thought crime. He is the bank robber that got caught before getting out of the bank with his money. No harm, no crime,, no punishment, eh? If that robber was Trump today, he would just say he was looking for Silver Certificates and y'all would buy it. You still haven't provided any argument that shows the illegality of his actions or valid reasons for impeachment, other than "Trump Bad" You even admit that he stopped whatever plan he had. What was he caught doing? Explain his actions in legal terms, not in emotional babble. Edited January 31, 2020 by GG 2 1
Gary M Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Those officials are NOT kicked out of office! Because they aren't #orangemanbad
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: There is no worry for Presidents in any party. There will be even longer legal battles to get executive branch evidence now than ever before, if Congress wishes to investigate. It will take years now going forward. The King thanks you for your support. I don't know why things would play out that way. You've already indicated that only the truth will be revealed should we set aside precedent , common sense, and basic litigation strategy for the first time in history. Regardless, I will sleep soundly knowing that you appealed for real compassion, understanding, trust and emotional balance in our system. T 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 23 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: House collects the evidence and submits it to Senate for trial....... Senates job is not gather evidence or call new witnesses Well, would it be fair to say that in this instance you don't want more evidence? This is political and more evidence may hurt Trump and he is on the verge of acquittal. OK, fair enough. If in court (different, yes) with your daughter's accused rapist. During the trial a witness comes out of the blue and pipes up in court and says, "I want to be called to the stand. I witnessed the whole thing." Would you want to hear that evidence even though obviously the police/prosecutor did not do a thorough job of investigating or lining up all witnesses. Or, let the guy walk ? 1
Golden Goat Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: If in court (different, yes) with your daughter's accused rapist. During the trial a witness comes out of the blue and pipes up in court and says, "I want to be called to the stand. I witnessed the whole thing." Would you want to hear that evidence... Not if he had a book deal. 2 2
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 34 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: So they shouldn't hear ALL the evidence, as contrived as it was, why exactly? If you were accused of a crime would you be fine if your defense lawyers were barred from all pre-trial proceedings and the only evidence allowed at trial is that produced by the prosecution? Dangerous to your ability to defend your innocence or nah? Trump and/or Republican representation, when not declining the opportunities, were present in the House phase. Again, it left the House on the way to trial. Without outing the whistle blower, I have no problem interviewing the guy. Rather than cast suspicions and leaving it there, shine the light on it. Call the guy. As mentioned though, if he had amazing info, he would have been called in the Senate or very least he would have been threatened to be called like Hunter, etc
snafu Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Part of this is cut from my above post to TYTT. See though, there are a few differences from a court trial. One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that. A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? There's no difference when someone asserts a Constitutional right. Cippolone asserted the President's rights in his letter Congress dated October 8. Disputes go to Court. The House Democrats chose not to go to Court. That's their problem and can't complain about it now. 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians. Determining of motivations is important here. Corrupt purposes, standing alone, may be a proper inquiry (I stress may). Look up the case of Dean Skelos. That's "corruption", standing alone. This matter isn't. That's not the case here. The House Managers are misleading you and you're buying their line. 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents. There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed? The only answer here is "so what if there may be more". It isn't the President's job to help the people who want to put him out of office. This is so easy to understand that I am coming to the conclusion that you're bored and trolling. 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: And four, unlike a trial, part of the audience is the public. If they don't apply any pressure to Repub Sens, those Sens can skate out of this. So, not all arguments made by Dems would occur in a courtroom but may be said here in order to influence the public. Yes, this is a purely political proceeding. Everyone here knows that. Every Congress member, Senator, and the President will have to answer to their respective constituents on election day. If you're coming to this realization now then I don't know what to say. But also consider the hypocrisy of the Democrats: each one of them is using their political power (the power to impeach) for purely political purposes. Every single one of them knows that the Senate was never going to get to 67 votes to convict the President. But they pressed on in an election year for the sole purpose to make political points and damage the prospects of the President. That's what they are doing and that's what they are complaining about the President having done. 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: In addition, Snafu regarding motivations, it is not good versus bad. It is national interests versus personal, political interests. It is not about finding a possible truth, it should about finding out the actual truth. I already discussed this. You can NOT weigh mixed motives. 52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: So, going forward, can all US politicians ask for foreign election help?? See, that is part of the problem of just saying whatever he did, it was not enough to convict. OK, but what did he do and what is now improper going forward? Assuming that Trump solicited foreign election help (which I am not doing), you're very sheltered if you think this is the first and only time something like this has ever happened before (look up Nixon, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton -- those are the first four that come to my mind). If you did know about these four at the time and you didn't complain, then why are you so bent now? You don't like it, and you want to send a message about this being improper. People like you don't like this and want to send a message about this being improper. Go vote. Bob, we are beating this horse to death. I'm not going to respond to you any more about these matters. 2 2 2
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, I am the egg man said: Another Lib loses it: https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/ .....it's only the beginning of their insanity. And yet I'd be willing to bet this contributor would be VERY happy if CA said it would only award its delegates to the candidate who won the national popular vote.
Prickly Pete Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Not sure f this has been mentioned, but has anyone Google searched "Eric Ciaramella"? The results are all smaller Conservative outlets, nothing from any of the msm outlets. 1 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Foxx said: my only qualm with this post is that it is not illiberal but rather a very liberal thing. No, it’s illiberal. Liberalism =/ Leftism. Our system of jurisprudence is a liberal one. 2
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, would it be fair to say that in this instance you don't want more evidence? This is political and more evidence may hurt Trump and he is on the verge of acquittal. OK, fair enough. If in court (different, yes) with your daughter's accused rapist. During the trial a witness comes out of the blue and pipes up in court and says, "I want to be called to the stand. I witnessed the whole thing." Would you want to hear that evidence even though obviously the police/prosecutor did not do a thorough job of investigating or lining up all witnesses. Or, let the guy walk ? Bob, is your real name Adam? i'm beginning to think so because you are making up story after story after story to show your insecurity. 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Oh please! I’m involved with public policy on the local level. Elected officials routinely are involved in things that later the Public Counsel tells the administrators that ‘they can’t do that’ because of some statute somewhere. Those officials are NOT kicked out of office! Well, that doesn't mean much, frankly. Obviously there are rules that are unknowingly violated or actions that may not be a big deal even if violations occur. In Trump's case, he has been told repeatedly that foreign election interference is illegal. So, he knew that he was cheating and violating law. In addition, imo, repeatedly soliciting illegal foreign election help is quite far from minor. 28 minutes ago, GG said: You still haven't provided any argument that shows the illegality of his actions or valid reasons for impeachment, other than "Trump Bad" You even admit that he stopped whatever plan he had. What was he caught doing? Explain his actions in legal terms, not in emotional babble. No, I don't want to go into that much effort giving you what you can find in the House charges. Reread those and if you have further questions, be specific. 1
123719bwiqrb Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, 32ABBA said: Not sure f this has been mentioned, but has anyone Google searched "Eric Ciaramella"? The results are all smaller Conservative outlets, nothing from any of the msm outlets. It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule book that they are told to follow. 2
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to mockery: On the flip side, Trump has made politics more fun for the rest of us than it’s been in decades. It’s all over but the lamentations of the women Democrats, Progressives, and NeverTrumps. The leftist establishment took their best shot at President Trump and today it glances harmlessly off his chin. Make no mistake: Donald Trump’s acquittal is real, and it is spectacular. . 3 1
Recommended Posts