Bob in Mich Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 12 minutes ago, Rob's House said: What was the question? Does it matter? My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Does it matter? My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings. False. You literally just advocated for a reversal of our standard of justice because you know that you have no evidence. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Does it matter? My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings. I like to answer questions posed to others. From your response, however, I take it this was personal in nature. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 15 minutes ago, Rob's House said: The two are not mutually exclusive. Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect. Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses. He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 GOP staffers eating their free cake after Trumps acquittal The only bipartisan vote in the House in this whole process was AGAINST impeachment. Everything else has been partisan. Never forget that. . 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Just now, Bob in Mich said: Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect. Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses. He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity. So you're basing your opinion that Trump is "absolutely guilty" on mystery evidence in the form of emails, texts and witnesses you haven't seen, read, or heard from? And here I thought you couldn't get any more foolish. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 ? https://twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1179523279117324288 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 33 minutes ago, Rob's House said: I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity. I believe what Dershowitz said is that you'd need an underlying crime to attach to the "abuse of power" accusation. Something like "the President abused his power because he committed bribery, treason or some other high crime and misdemeanor" (he particularly stressed the word other). What Schiff argued is that the underlying "crime" is extortion/bribery. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: Lucky Strike, thanks for the reply and the replying to my OJ analogy. It is a work in progress I admit, but the salient similar points: - OJ underwent a massive investigation that cost taxpayers $Millions - Same for Trump -OJ was acquitted of charges but a lot of suspicion of his possible guilt remained -Similar for Trump -The investigations and eventual trial put OJ through a very difficult process personally that damaged his reputation -Same for Trump -OJ and his supporters claim now that those that still investigate/watch him are harassing him even though he was acquitted - Same for Trump -OJ's detractors claim the guy is a criminal who needs to be watched closely for future crimes - Similar for Trump detractors The point then that I was making is that you claim that Trump should not be investigated by Congress going forward just because Mueller did not charge him after that massive previous investigation. Try to follow here, but that logic put to OJ would be like saying OJ should not be investigated if there are any new allegations because he was already acquitted after a massive investigation that has put him through hell. Regarding closing out the trial without witnesses, it appears you will get your wish. As I posted before, the impact on Trump is obvious and immediate. Remains to be seen the future impact on the campaigns of the deaf and blind Repub Senators. Americans have short memories though so maybe none. Kavanaugh...we talked about this issue previously and I gave you my honest though limited take. I recall I had a question for you on that that you never answered. I will look for that but probably enough for one posting anyway No recollection on an unanswered Kavvie question. I'm not sure what question would cause me to rethink my feelings on that but have at it if you can. I follow your explanation on OJ. I'd accept the comparison if OJ was tried by football players only, in two separate trials with rules developed by his enemies in one case and his allies on the other, entirely unrelated to those set forth in your ypical criminal trial.. Peace out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 35 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove. Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty. If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun. There's also no smoking gun on the horizon. You mind won't be changed. My mind won't be changed. This is over. 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty. If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun. There's also no smoking gun on the horizon. You mind won't be changed. My mind won't be changed. This is over. @Bob in Mich does not believe in nor value 100s of years of western jurisprudence or our rule of law. He is advocating, knowingly or not (likely not, because he's dim) for a complete reversal of our system of justice just because Trump is mean. He's a mental midget. **************************** It's over. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Maybe you can help me understand the Repub motivation on this. If so, please take a minute if you would. Agree or disagree? The whistle blower program in general is useful in uncovering possible misdeeds by government employees. Agree or disagree? Outing this guy/girl's identity will put his and his family's lives in greater danger from some possibly unstable Trump supporter. Agree or disagree? Outing him/her too would have a chilling affect on future possible whistle blowing due to the outing of this whistle blower. agree or disagree? The whistle blower's statement has been, if not exactly, largely supported by the House witnesses who were under oath. agree or disagree? Couldn't whatever questions the Repub Sens have be answered by the whistle blower either on paper or in secret hearings? Why is it so important to Repubs (if it is to you) to publicly out this guy/woman given the concerns? agree. disagree. disagree. agree. probably. invalid concerns. pointedly. the whistle blower is an important component in helping hold accountability within the governmental hierarchy. however, there is nothing that explicitly grants the whistle blower immunity and or protection from exposure. lastly, there is a reasonable question as to whether or not the supposed whistle blower is actually, technically a whistle blower. whistle blowers are afforded certain protections but, and i could be wrong here, i don't believe protection from identity reveal is one of them. you opine whether the supposed whistle blower would come under duress from a fanatic. i would venture that the statistical likely hood of them coming under attack from a conservative is below any statistical norm of anyone else for anything else. yes sure the danger exists but so does the chance of getting a hangnail. this whistle blower (if he can even be legally called that) is politically driven and quite possibly a political tool from the left. are others going to be discouraged from coming forward of their own volition, or better yet, probably better termed... brought forward by nefarious political forces, definitely not. yes, his contention is well supported by testimony. in that there were policy differences. nothing more. if he is subpoenaed, he will be deposed in private before any public (if any) testimony, as will all 'new witnesses'. the import of the outing of the supposed whistle blower it multifaceted, with the main question surrounding his bias (remember the IG reported an obvious bias), his connections and the coordination of it all. remember, i took the time here so please, if you wish to continue, be respectful and be cordial and honest in response. otherwise we will resort to the form yesterdays ended with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: So you're basing your opinion that Trump is "absolutely guilty" on mystery evidence in the form of emails, texts and witnesses you haven't seen, read, or heard from? And here I thought you couldn't get any more foolish. Witnesses, his own transcript, Mulvaney, and heck, even Alan Derssh is basically saying he did it, but its ok. The cover up is even more obvious. Just like OJ though, some people won't see the obvious. You are a partisan blind monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Rob's House said: John "How Will I Look" Roberts has always been more concerned with his image than the law. There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 18 minutes ago, snafu said: Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty. If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun. There's also no smoking gun on the horizon. You mind won't be changed. My mind won't be changed. This is over. They have. Trump just has a partisan jury. That's it Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs. ?No Bolton? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Foxx said: agree. disagree. disagree. agree. probably. invalid concerns. pointedly. the whistle blower is an important component in helping hold accountability within the governmental hierarchy. however, there is nothing that explicitly grants the whistle blower immunity and or protection from exposure. lastly, there is a reasonable question as to whether or not the supposed whistle blower is actually, technically a whistle blower. whistle blowers are afforded certain protections but, and i could be wrong here, i don't believe protection from identity reveal is one of them. you opine whether the supposed whistle blower would come under duress from a fanatic. i would venture that the statistical likely hood of them coming under attack from a conservative is below any statistical norm of anyone else for anything else. yes sure the danger exists but so does the chance of getting a hangnail. this whistle blower (if he can even be legally called that) is politically driven and quite possibly a political tool from the left. are others going to be discouraged from coming forward of their own volition, or better yet, probably better termed... brought forward by nefarious political forces, definitely not. yes, his contention is well supported by testimony. in that there were policy differences. nothing more. if he is subpoenaed, he will be deposed in private before any public (if any) testimony, as will all 'new witnesses'. the import of the outing of the supposed whistle blower it multifaceted, with the main question surrounding his bias (remember the IG reported an obvious bias), his connections and the coordination of it all. remember, i took the time here so please, if you wish to continue, be respectful and be cordial and honest in response. otherwise we will resort to the form yesterdays ended with. Bob's nonsense list aside (ridiculous list), in this country the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. And considering how the Trump/Russia hoax was crafted, pushed, and weaponized by anonymous CIA sources -- just like this "scandal" -- NOT calling the whistleblower, or taking Bob's line of reasoning, is to condone unelected CIA officers and personnel undoing an election from the shadows. *****. That. Then again, Bob wants to subvert our entire rule of law and flip it on its head. So of course he sees no issue here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, snafu said: Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty. If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun. There's also no smoking gun on the horizon. You mind won't be changed. My mind won't be changed. This is over. it's smocking damnitall! smocking!!!!!! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect. Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses. He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity. Is this an argument that the President cannot take any policy position, no matter how good it is for the health of the country, if doing so would benefit his re-election? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: i agree 100% with Dersh here. no one, and i mean no one (the possible exception here being our one celled mentally challenged amoeba, tibsey), makes any decision based solely upon the basis of just one point of information. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts