Bob in Mich
-
Posts
1,749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bob in Mich
-
-
35 minutes ago, Foxx said:
Bob, i think you might have a serious issue. please, for your own mental health, seek help.
Boy, full circle or what? Just the other day you seemed to not like me and you were calling me names. Here today you are concerned for me. That is so nice
-
13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
You're escalating the rhetoric. You started out just looking for truth, you moved on to opining he's guilty though you haven't heard from the witnesses you long for, and now he's a bank robber caught in the lobby?* How could this be given you simply cannot know the full story??!
You sounds suspiciously like one of those monotone Wonderbread professors on "American Landscape" on that damn NPR channel! You should throw Fox on once in a while.
*this mindset is exactly why no political party/defense team would let the enemy define the rules of the game. People fib, and their true motives are usually hidden. And here I trusted you! ?
Loonie Toonie, thanks for the reply. lol I disagree surprisingly. Nothing personal, but I am about done typing today. A bit more though for my friend.
I do watch Fox News way more than I would like as it typically ends with me yelling and spitting upon my own video screens. I do so for an educational balance attempt.
The witnesses are needed, not for an impartial jury, that would be unnecessary as imo the case is proven. The witnesses are needed in spite of impossible conviction in order to find out the truth so we can agree going forward what is legal and what is illegal. I guess all future candidates can now 'cheat', so the playing field levels even though I think that decision is a horrible one.
now, get that rest buddy
-
32 minutes ago, ScotSHO said:
It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule book that they are told to follow.
Or, they know the current political environment. They know too we have mental health and gun proliferation issues in our country. Maybe they think trying to push the guy further into the limelight unnecessarily endangers him and his family.
Or, do you think he and his family should be attacked for being a whistle blower?
-
25 minutes ago, Foxx said:
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.
Stories? Not sure about stories but I can be accused of juggling a lot of analogies. I have football games and rapists and bank robbers to name a few
I don't get your insecurity point as I am doing that to help simplify the arguments. Sometimes it helps to strip away unimportant information to help uncover the crux.
If you'd like to explain how trying to use analogies demonstrates insecurity, that would be interesting.
-
20 minutes ago, snafu said:
Bob, we are beating this horse to death. I'm not going to respond to you any more about these matters.
Agreed and I will join you in dropping this conversation after one more point. Dont feel you need to respond. I appreciate the chat.
The chief reason I was in favor of pursuing impeachment in spite of certain acquittal was to stop the election interference. The Repubs obviously though seem to think it is now OK.
I disagree with that take but if everyone can now openly do it, I guess the field levels somewhat. The incumbents obviously though have greater advantage by using taxpayer funds as leverage. Thx again.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
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
Rest well my friend. It may help your brain. lol
-
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
-
-
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
-
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
-
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
He doesn't need to be called, they have his testimony already but we aren't allowed to see it because Schiff. So they can redact the name of the whistleblower from the transcript. Remember the President and his counsel were barred from calling their own witnesses in the House. Was that maybe a bit unfair and dangerous or nah?
Of the 18 witnesses called by the dems and the dems only, just Atkinson's testimony has been sealed. By Adam Schiff. I wonder why?
The House phase was not the trial phase. It was a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to impeach. Even at that though I believe the President refused to represent his interests even when given the opportunity late in the House process. I believe complaints about the House process are very much overstated. It wasn't the trial.
The guy could be called in the Senate in trial phase I assume. They have majority and votes to call the shots. Perhaps if he had blockbuster information exonerating Trump, the Senate might have called him. Perhaps the suggestion of Schiff impropriety is more valuable to the Repubs than actually examining his testimony? I suspect that may be the case but, like you, I don't know what was said by Atkinson
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, GG said:
Consider for a second the dangerous of a precedent "corrupt purposes" would set.
You would be institutionalizing thought crime.
Who are acting more like Nazis?
How can a person judging propriety of an action not consider why the action was done in the mind of the defendant? Again, that seems crazy to me.
Simple example: Fact: I shoot and kill a man. I am on trial and claim self defense.
Would it matter if I broke into his house and killed him as opposed to him breaking into my house and getting shot and killed ? Would you, as a juror, say that is immaterial?
-
37 minutes ago, snafu said:
You’re being obtuse. Whether on purpose or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to go into your motives because it is irrelevant.
To your second paragraph — the President has the right to do nothing. Just like you do if someone accuses you of something. Silence can not be used to imply guilt. This is as simple a Constitutional right as one can have.
To your third paragraph — yes of course I’d want an investigation. And I’d want that investigation to be done by people who have the authority to investigate. And I’d want those people to respect my right to not be required to help them out.
By the way, your third paragraph completely disproves your entire premise about motives when looking at the predicate for impeachment. If Trump thought Biden was corrupt, wouldn’t you want him to investigate that? Isn’t that a good motive? This is the problem with weighing motives when there’s more than one reason to do anything. This is why inquiring into motives isn’t really as important as you make them out to be.
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?
And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians. Determining of motivations is important here.
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?
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.
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.
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?
-
1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:
Have you fully looked into who Michael Atkinson is yet? If you have and are worried about no more witnesses being heard in the Senate trial, then you must be equally aghast at Schiff's hiding of his testimony, right?
Call him in the Senate then. Just don't do it just to out the whistle blower. Imo, if not to punish, all that needs to be learned on that issue can be done without putting a target on the guy and his family. I know his name is out there but there is no need to open the guy up to even more crazies that could attack him or his family.
-
57 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Tell you what though, if we want to debate thought crimes, motivation, feelings, and kicking all the doors in in the relentless pursuit of the adversary, let's get that done when your guy is in power, and your vote is impacted. I didn't like it when Mueller did it, I don't like it now.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.
It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.
Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has. Full stop. That’s how it works.
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?
And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians. Determining of motivations is important here.
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?
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.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I think, Robby, it's hard for folks to grasp where you're coming from at times. I mean, I know where you're coming from, I just don't know why you would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever think that in such a highly partisan "investigation" that any supporter of the president would push for more/extended hearings on this.
See, in my opinion, it makes the most sense to avail oneself of every legal and rational argument or procedural opportunity to close this out with the knowledge that your adversary failed. I know you know the dems would follow that process, and we can both agree they already did in setting up the impeachment case to begin with. If the evidence they had was strong enough to carry the day legally, after the house had completed it's dirty work, there would be little reason not to move forward. Again, they didn't even carry their own partisan party on this issue. How the heck does that happen if they have the Trumpsta dead to rights?
I get the "what were his motivations" angle, and "why can't we just talk more, where's the harm in that if you're innocent?" approach. That's a law enforcement/big government tactic used all the time. Let's acknowledge that as 'fishing', but let's also agree that has absolutely nothing--zero, nada, zilch--to do with what is in the best interest of the subject of the investigation.
If the WH "blocking" witnesses is illegal, the dems should have at it. If not, just like Schiff, Biden or Biden Jr aren't out begging to testify voluntarily to help us all understand this polarizing events of days past, the R's should rightly tell the enemy to suck a nut.
I do agree though, DJT is the first President/politician who did not go to the Mother Theresa Slums of Mumbai Selflessness Training Academy. I think as citizens were should all be grateful that prior to #45, we had 44 presidents (44.5 if you include Popular Vote Queen and Haffa-Prez Hillary C) who sacrificed everything for the good of all people everywhere. May God Bless them, may God Bless them all.
Again, Larry, nice guy with a highly partisan, short sighted, inaccurate take that includes lots of assumptions on unknown matters. You seem to buy every accusation against the left while discounting every accusation on Trump. Given Trump's penchant for lying, is that really a reasonable course? Do you watch Hannity on Fox by any chance? Ever watch PBS NewsHour?
The House presented their case. Imo, to an impartial jury and given the WH investigation obstruction, he would be convicted. As you say, to the Repubs, it was never going to be proven enough to convict. The goal at this point is twofold. Get the President's illegal election interference to stop. Also, they want to get the Repub Senators on record as giving up oversight and ignoring available evidence.
The Nixon tapes changed minds in that hearing. Similar Trump tapes today would not. We have WH lawn video with Trump doing what he denies doing and even that is not convincing enough. Without the skies opening and God himself telling them on TV to '***** listen', the Repub Sens don't want to know more. The more they know, the harder it is to say, 'No problem'.
-
14 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:
So you asked a question, i answered and you ignored what i said. Strange no mention of Biden from what i said. And i never said or intimated because ofTrump University, Trump wasnt honest, as i said it was a fly by night university for fly by night degrees, runnijng that doesnt mean he is "dishoinest".
You really dont want to debate, you want to preach and proselytize
A bit more information on how scammy?
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:
Actually a very level headed and fair comments. You do take a lot of abuse here, i dont know your "history" here so i have no idea if in fact it is "deserved" or not. I try not to get emotinal either way. I am not a great Trump fan, some of what he does, his comments, are just crazy but his policies have been spot on and the economy is doing great.
Thanks. I appreciate the comments and civility.
lol, I generate new hate each day but primarily, most here came to dislike me from the 'Know Anyone With a Disease' PPP thread that I began in 2014. It is a medical marijuana thread. Back then I lived in Michigan that had approved it years earlier than NY state. I tried to be educational but battling through all the ignorance, snark, and drug pusher allegations, things often devolved into insult exchanges.
This thread: https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/169052-know-anyone-with-a-disease-read-this/
-
14 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:
Well MY opinion really isnt relevant to anything , is it but since you want to know, I think his motivation was as Sondland said, to have them do the right thing and look into what Ukraine's role was in the 2016 election, i think Trump is pissed the Ukraine was out to get him and i cant blame him and it is also Trumps job to investigate corruption according ot a pact they have with the Ukriane. The fact Biden is running for President is irrelevant (except for the political sideshow we have going on), does Biden have immunity? Entire thing is afarce. To me clearly Biden is dirty. Biden is also a walking gaffe machine and frankly would be easy for Trump to beat him so i dont think Trunmp had some super secret Macheviallioan plot to thwart Biden because he is a candidate. Just what the appeal is for Biden is beyond me, a corrupt ol feeble minded white guy, reads like a lot of ex president we have had.
I appreciate the reply. Of course, we disagree but thanks.
-
13 hours ago, snafu said:
Trump’s reasons are what they are. Whatever he says his motives were, I think people will interpret them and make conclusions according to their own personal biases. You said yourself that you want to know whether he had honest or corrupt purposes. The truth isn’t so binary. And for this reason the motives are not material.
Ask yourself honestly whether the President should be removed on such a thin pretext whereby you or anyone else can disagree over an interpretation of the President’s motives.
Ask yourself whether Biden shouldn’t be investigated for corruption merely because he declared his candidacy for President. It didn’t stop anyone from questioning whether Trump was “pure” in 2016 and beyond.
@keepthefaith already nearly summarized the other main reasons why mixed motives are a dangerous thing when impeaching a President. Are you going to have a test about what motives were more or less influential?
Let the voters decide in November.
With all due respect, were you drinking even more than me? Motivations are not material? The truth is too vague? Sorry, that seems plain silly to me. The primary reason we can't get to the bottom of the motive question is due to the WH blocking. That should enter into your thinking, imo
Honestly, do you really think if Trump had all sorts of emails and texts and witnesses that could easily exonerate him, that he would really hold them back from Congress to protect future Presidents? When has he done something like that before, as opposed to what is best for Donnie ?
I used a football analogy before. If there is strong suspicion that one team is paying off the officials, does it make sense to ignore that possibility, not investigate, and say, let it be decided on the field?
-
11 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Address my points.Sort of demanding there for someone that doesn't really deserve that right. But, I have nothing else to do so...
There have been a lot of questions and posts. If you are talking about the one where you said we don't know motivations and I can't assume guilt and should assume innocence? I will run with that for a bit and hope that is what you were talking about.
I did answer that I thought we have the ability to learn motivations with documents and witnesses that the President is blocking. That fact in conjunction with what we do know from House proceedings, FOIA docs, past behavior, comments by Trump and his people on TV, and common sense, I have been convinced that Trump had primarily personal, political, election cheating motivations.
-
Just now, CoudyBills said:
In January?
Well, it was a fable that he made up so, sure, why not?
Too bad you missed the pictures of him, out on a northern Canadian lake, in the nation's largest canoe, holding up a huge stringer of sturgeon
-
1
-
-
Hey, that's right. What happened to Row33?
Hey NiagaraBill, you're from Canada, right? Have you seen our missing Russian-Canadian poster Row33? He says he lives in Canada too.
Bet he went sturgeon fishing again.
The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by Bob in Mich
Reposting
On 5/8/2019 at 2:37 PM, Bob in Mich said:
Thought I would re-post this here. If we do actually get into impeachment it might be interesting to see how the backpedaling from today's Repubs follows the Dems actions from the Clinton impeachment in the 90's. Obviously the details are different but if we go down the path there will be similarities I would guess too.
The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican. You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern. I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation. I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here. Here is the 99 email:
> I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ...
>
> Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious
> Right Wing, therefor the enemy. They feel that for many years the
> Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal
> freedoms in the name of morality. They want the government to stay out of
> their personal lives. That feeling is at the root of this Clinton
> support. They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's
> personal life. They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition)
> now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in
> his private life'. Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they
> are not giving any more ground to this morality craze.
>
> Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had
> told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway. Many of us that
> didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't
> see how dishonest the guy was. In reality the backers saw the dishonesty
> and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities. When he is finally
> caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was
> dishonest. Look at the evidence we have on him.' While his supporters
> say, 'What's the big deal? He told a lie about sex. The economy is
> great. Get over it.'
>
> This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill. It
> seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another
> position to fall back to ...
>
> 1. The story breaks... He did not have an affair with this
> 'gold-digger'. She is just trying to smear the President or just out to
> get a book deal for her self. The Whitehouse says that she was stalking
> the President and that the FBI is investigating her.
> 2. Talk of the stained dress surfaces. Now the stance is 'I
> doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed
> adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and
> his God. The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try
> to get Clinton'.
> 3. He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex. Who
> hasn't lied about sex? Obstruction of Justice! Get real.
> 4. He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones'
> attorneys. He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive. He can be
> misleading without committing perjury. There's nothing illegal just
> because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked. Besides
> he had to protect Hillary.
> 5. OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case
> was eventually thrown out. Everybody lies in civil cases. It's not a
> serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case. Besides, that Ken
> Starr spent how many millions of dollars? He was appointed to investigate
> Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That
> Betty Curry thing? He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all.
> 6. Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury. What was he going to
> do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid. He
> had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten,
> bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves
> office. He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him.
>
> 7. Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter. It's
> certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'.
> There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice. The
> obstruction case is purely speculation. He says- She says case - could
> never be proven. Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all
> allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'.
> 8. The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have
> been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the
> perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor'). Ok, in some cases perjury could
> be grounds for removal, but not in this case. This case is only about sex
> and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into
> everybody's bedroom... Would you want to be asked sexual questions under
> oath?
> 9. The Senators are not just jurors, you know. They are trying
> the case. They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of
> law, and the Constitution. They also need to consider what's in the best
> interests of this country. The House managers may have made a pretty good
> case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if
> he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
> 10. And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business
> asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he
> couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination). That
> f***er Ken Starr. It was a witch hunt. Any evidence against Clinton has
> to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in
> acquiring it. It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the
> way they went about it.