keepthefaith Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: Honest question, do you think Trump University was a scam business? I mean once a corrupt person, always a corrupt person. Trump University is a worse scam than anything Hunter Biden did. Any issues with Trump U have been settled. Litigated and settled. How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 6
123719bwiqrb Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, keepthefaith said: Any issues with Trump U have been settled. Litigated and settled. How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? But CNN says the Biden story is a tinfoil hat thingy, like the moon landing. Oh wait, CNN still believes in that one.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 ROGER SIMON: Misuse of Whistleblower Law Created the Impeachment Farce. 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 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
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Any issues with Trump U have been settled. Litigated and settled. How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? Sure, you are right. But it does show his bad character. Republican Senator Alexander admits Trump abused his power, and both these things are consistant with a person who is corrupt. As are many other things he has done. Hunter Biden is not his father. Trump is just totally corrupt. Joe Biden, no
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 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.
BillsFanNC Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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? 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? 3
Golden Goat Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that. A normal defendant would not have that right. A normal defendant would, however, have the right to face his accuser in court. Normal rules don't apply anywhere in this case. 5
Foxx Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) hahahahahahaaa. where is Nadler? nowhere to be found is the House Judiciary Chair. ? Edited January 31, 2020 by Foxx 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 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.
Wacka Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Like I said in a previous thread, on Tuesday, Trump should come to the podium with a rap song playing n sunglasses, just look at Pelosi and say " Four years, beoch", drop the mic and leave. Edited January 31, 2020 by Wacka 1
B-Man Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Turn out the lights........... or maybe the NYT's could release more nonsense.........? 1 4
GG Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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. 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? 3 3
Albwan Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 42 minutes 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. yes! i'm giddy with anticipation!! 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: hahahahahahaaa. where is Nadler? nowhere to be found is the House Judiciary Chair. ? He's off identifying as Jerry Klobachar today 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 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?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 24 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? It's statements like this which result in you being (rightfully) mocked. You admitted you don't know who the IC-IG is or why his testimony is relevant and being kept hidden by Schiff -- yet you claim, without irony, that there's "precious little to counter accounts of his actions". When you INTENTIONALLY remain uninformed and allow yourself to be programmed by proven liars and manipulators, as you have done, then it may seem like there's "precious little to counter" the narrative. But the reality is far different. 11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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. Your sympathy for the whistleblower is admirable. Where was it when Nunes was being threatened, doxxed, and attacked by the crazies on the left? Did you pile on? (yup, you did). Did you protest? (nope, because you're a partisan hack, not an independent thinker). 2
BillsFanNC Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: 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. 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? 3
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 10 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? I'd say it's amazing he fails to see this, but he's the walking embodiment of an NPC, so of course he's blind to it. Yet another reason why @Bob in Mich is rightfully mocked. 1
dubs Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 I thought today was the day Hillary was going to become President, right? I’m wearing my I’m With Her shirt for the occasion!! trump impeached hillary appointed speaker of the house pence resigns hillary assumes presidency as third in line what happened??? 2 1
Recommended Posts