Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Here we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 So what will be the narrative when absolutely NOTHING new is presented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGee Return TD Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said: The last strategy of a desperate soul: 1984esque doublespeak. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 If a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a sound? What a ludicrous statement from some people who are supposed to be our best legal minds? We are ALL innocent until proven guilty! Or at least we used to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chris farley said: So what will be the narrative when absolutely NOTHING new is presented? Nothing is going to change after today. The Left Wingers will continue asking to start impeachment proceedings, and the Right will continue to defend Trump. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatnot78 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Nothing is going to change after today. The Left Wingers will continue asking to start impeachment proceedings, and the Right will continue to defend Trump. This x100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Nothing is going to change after today. The Left Wingers will continue asking to start impeachment proceedings, and the Right will continue to defend Trump. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a sound? What a ludicrous statement from some people who are supposed to be our best legal minds? We are ALL innocent until proven guilty! Or at least we used to be. Just like OJ was innocent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: Just like OJ was innocent! OJ is indeed innocent. That’s how are System works. When people stop accepting that, we have a real problem. But then again you’ve yet to accept the results of the 2016 election either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: OJ is indeed innocent. That’s how are System works. When people stop accepting that, we have a real problem. But then again you’ve yet to accept the results of the 2016 election either. There's a difference between being innocent and not being proven guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: There's a difference between being innocent and not being proven guilty. What is that difference in our system of justice? Our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty. Saying someone wasn't proven to be be not guilty is quite literally a nonsense statement -- unless you're advocating undermining our entire system of justice. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: What is that difference in our system of justice? Our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty. Saying someone wasn't proven to be be not guilty is quite literally a nonsense statement -- unless you're advocating undermining our entire system of justice. When a jury delivers a decision, do they say "innocent", or "not guilty"? I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out that the jury for OJ never said he was innocent. He was never exonerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Today is about to be on a... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: What is that difference in our system of justice? Our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty. Saying someone wasn't proven to be be not guilty is quite literally a nonsense statement -- unless you're advocating undermining our entire system of justice. Thank you! That fact is apparently lost on a lot of people these days. The defendant walks into the court room INNOCENT and if they walk out they are still and forever more will be INNOCENT. Some folks need to be accused of something one day and see if they want to try that shoe on their foot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: OJ is indeed innocent. That’s how are System works. When people stop accepting that, we have a real problem. But then again you’ve yet to accept the results of the 2016 election either. Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: When a jury delivers a decision, do they say "innocent", or "not guilty"? I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out that the jury for OJ never said he was innocent. He was never exonerated. Oh brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: When a jury delivers a decision, do they say "innocent", or "not guilty"? I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out that the jury for OJ never said he was innocent. He was never exonerated. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. A jury renders its verdict after a trial. A prosecutor, which Mueller was, does not render exonerations. That's not at all how the system works. Suggesting Mueller "didn't clear Trump by not charging him" is in fact incorrect. By not charging him, by stating that there was not evidence found to support the Russia collusion theory, Mueller did clear Trump. He remains innocent, not guilty. Mueller's probe proved it. Unless you want to subvert our system of justice which many TDS suffers do because "TRUMP IS A NAZI" 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 At least OJ wasn't a traitor. A fifth columnist against our democracy. Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Innocent until PROVEN guilty. A jury renders its verdict after a trial. A prosecutor, which Mueller was, does not render exonerations. That's not at all how the system works. Suggesting Mueller "didn't clear Trump by not charging him" is in fact incorrect. By not charging him, by stating that there was not evidence found to support the Russia collusion theory, Mueller did clear Trump. He remains innocent, not guilty. Mueller's probe proved it. Unless you want to subvert our system of justice which many TDS suffers do because "TRUMP IS A NAZI" We literally are down to "You can't totally prove he is a traitor!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Innocent until PROVEN guilty. A jury renders its verdict after a trial. A prosecutor, which Mueller was, does not render exonerations. That's not at all how the system works. Suggesting Mueller "didn't clear Trump by not charging him" is in fact incorrect. By not charging him, by stating that there was not evidence found to support the Russia collusion theory, Mueller did clear Trump. He remains innocent, not guilty. Mueller's probe proved it. Unless you want to subvert our system of justice which many TDS suffers do because "TRUMP IS A NAZI" I'm talking about OJ Simpson. Sure, you enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence, but a jury's decision to convict someone comes down to whether prosecutors present enough evidence to determine that they are guilty. In the event they don't meet that threshold, you leave the courtroom "not guilty". Also, Mueller never said there wasn't enough evidence against Trump. He did say that if he felt Trump didn't commit any crimes, he'd have said so, but he never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: At least OJ wasn't a traitor. A fifth columnist against our democracy. Hilarious! Actually we don’t really know whether OJ was or is a traitor. He’s never been investigated. For purposes of discussion we’ll assume he’s not. But....we do now know that Trump isn’t one. Irony is a concept that’s completely lost on you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm talking about OJ Simpson. No one else is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm talking about OJ Simpson. Sure, you enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence, but a jury's decision to convict someone comes down to whether prosecutors present enough evidence to determine that they are guilty. In the event they don't meet that threshold, you leave the courtroom "not guilty". Also, Mueller never said there wasn't enough evidence against Trump. He did say that if he felt Trump didn't commit any crimes, he'd have said so, but he never said that. So in Rober world you’d have people forever labeled as having been accused of things that they were never convicted of? Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 I think it will be a big nothing burger. The zealots on both sides are going to leave disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Also, Mueller never said there wasn't enough evidence against Trump. He did say that if he felt Trump didn't commit any crimes, he'd have said so, but he never said that. That's not how it works. And Mueller knows that. ***************************************************** Nadler leads off saying Mueller's indictments spoke for him... And not a single indictment was about collusion or obstruction or the 2016 campaign. Not one. Edited July 24, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, SoCal Deek said: So in Rober world you’d have people forever labeled as having been accused of things that they were never convicted of? Nice! Not necessarily. I think the court of public opinion makes decisions on a case by case basis. OJ is widely believed to have committed a brutal double homicide. I can live with him having been labelled a murder, even though a jury didn't convict him. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not how it works. And Mueller knows that. ***************************************************** Nadler leads off saying Mueller's indictments spoke for him... And not a single indictment was about collusion or obstruction or the 2016 campaign. Not one. Mueller said that he wasn't allowed to indict a sitting President in his report. He's left the entire thing up to Congress, and they haven't done anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, dpberr said: I think it will be a big nothing burger. The zealots on both sides are going to leave disappointed. It won't change any minds, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Not necessarily. I think the court of public opinion makes decisions on a case by case basis. Social Media has turned the Court of Public Opinion into a three ring circus. You’d better pray you’re never accused of something or your life will be forever ruined. 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: It won't change any minds, I agree. Hey! We actually agree on something. ? I knew we’d find common ground. So can we work on fixing the roads now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Mueller sounds old... as he reads from his prepared statement. He also shot up in his seat when Collins hit on the origin of the investigation. This isn't going to go the way Nadler wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Nice way to punt on the origins of the investigations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Mueller says he can't talk about the origin of the probe or the Steele Dossier today... No.... don't want to talk about the ACTUAL issues. Because this is a show. Just now, GG said: Nice way to punt on the origins of the investigations. Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 To summarize his opening statement. 1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election. 2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, GG said: Nice way to punt on the origins of the investigations. Hey, Barr set the rules! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: To summarize his opening statement. 1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election. 2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively. / "I won't talk about anything that matters because I can't" (like the origin or the Steele dossier) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Mueller says he can't talk about the origin of the probe or the Steele Dossier today... No.... don't want to talk about the ACTUAL issues. Because this is a show. Unreal. So he can't comment on some issues that occurred a few months before he was appointed SC, but had no problem indicting people for unrelated crimes that occurred years before he was appointed SC. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: To summarize his opening statement. 1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election. 2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively. 2. Yes they did, obstruction of justice hid the truth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Nadler starts off with Obstruction... not collusion/conspiracy. This after three years of saying there was evidence of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 No Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Nadler starts off with Obstruction... not collusion/conspiracy. This after three years of saying there was evidence of both. This is the judiciary committee, intelligence is the second hearing, its backwards, which is dumb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Nadler is being duplicitous here. Trump's trolling has gotten into his head to such a degree he called a congressional hearing about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: 2. Yes they did, obstruction of justice hid the truth Yikes. Mueller says Trump can be indicted for Obstruction of Justice after he leaves the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts