The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Donald Trump is not a racist solely on his birther push, it goes back to a federal suit on racial discrimination of his properties and calling for (full page ads in the NYT) the execution of the Central Park five when the young men were proven innocent of the crime.  There are multiple other hearsay examples I have heard about, but we don't have in evidence, but the narrator's are reliable.

So do you want us to ignore racial jungle remark by Biden?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

22 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So do you want us to ignore racial jungle remark by Biden?

No , you should bring the entire quote in context.

[moxy 1,051]

When I brought up that the Steele dossier was originally commissioned by Republicans, the cry from y'all was that it didn't matter who started it, but who actually made use of it. So... you know.

 

kermit_sipping_tea.jpg

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

False: 

 

Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary’s campaign manager until the Iowa caucuses in 2008, admitted first in a tweet and second in a CNN interview that a Hillary staffer first spread the birther issue. While the staffer was fired, the termination happened after the cat was let out of the bag. Patient Zero, thus, was a member of Team Hillary.

 

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/296548-how-birtherism-became-hillarys-waterloo

 

 

   Patient 45 was the guy who really spread it all over though.

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

57 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

No , you should bring the entire quote in context.

"Fine people."

 

"We love you"

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

No , you should bring the entire quote in context.

So bring the whole quote into context. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So bring the whole quote into context. 

 

  It clearly said you should bring the whole quote in context.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 1/14/2021 at 8:52 AM, laylalex said:

I think those are excellent questions! @elmcitymaven can you shed light on this?

Waiting for far greater legal minds than mine to opine on this, frankly. But the reality is that we are faced with a political process, not a legal one. Though the impeachment has the trappings of a legal process, ultimately there are very few of the guardrails of a legal trial. Rules of evidence do not apply, for one, and I do not know if the strict legal definition of "incitement" applies in an impeachment trial. I'm no constitutional lawyer -- I like money -- so like everyone else I will be watching to see what happens.

 

However, I will say that the briefs filed by the two sides are telling in their methods of presentment. The House brief is nearly exhaustive, and relies on a plethora of evidence reaching back, far back into English common law, as it should! Because impeachment is a constitutional procedure, and the constitution adopted the laws of England and Wales in existence at that time. And since those laws were based in common law, we need to look far back to centuries old procedure. It's a mildly impressive brief, a bit swaggery in its erudition, if you choose to read it.

 

Trump's side? Well, you know, sometimes you get hit with a load of manure you have to file a brief about in a matter of hours, and you just hope you don't make a bunch of typos. (Note: typos are normal, and frankly there is too much emphasis right now on them.) The real problem with the Trump brief is, in my opinion, twofold: first, it does not effectively rebut the House brief point by point, and second, it relies on the canard of "who can tell" when it comes to the winner of the election. Biden won, end of. No court has seen evidence that it found compelling in even a minor way to prove otherwise. Trump's earlier suite of lawyers -- real lawyers, by the way, of some pedigree -- jumped off ship because they would not present falsehoods to the court on this point. Which is really the only ethical stance to take. Butch Bowers is a real lawyer, and when I saw him come on board I thought, hmmm, okay. This gonna be fun then.

 

It's not going to be fun. The House will bury Trump because he's being represented by sycophants willing to put their reputation on the line for him, and yet he will not be convicted. Frankly, it's pathetic and sad. I have heard the argument that the point of the trial is to put the evidence on the record, and so be it. But that, to my eyes, is the only point. Nothing will be resolved.

[Dashinka 24,736]

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Waiting for far greater legal minds than mine to opine on this, frankly. But the reality is that we are faced with a political process, not a legal one. Though the impeachment has the trappings of a legal process, ultimately there are very few of the guardrails of a legal trial. Rules of evidence do not apply, for one, and I do not know if the strict legal definition of "incitement" applies in an impeachment trial. I'm no constitutional lawyer -- I like money -- so like everyone else I will be watching to see what happens.

 

However, I will say that the briefs filed by the two sides are telling in their methods of presentment. The House brief is nearly exhaustive, and relies on a plethora of evidence reaching back, far back into English common law, as it should! Because impeachment is a constitutional procedure, and the constitution adopted the laws of England and Wales in existence at that time. And since those laws were based in common law, we need to look far back to centuries old procedure. It's a mildly impressive brief, a bit swaggery in its erudition, if you choose to read it.

 

Trump's side? Well, you know, sometimes you get hit with a load of manure you have to file a brief about in a matter of hours, and you just hope you don't make a bunch of typos. (Note: typos are normal, and frankly there is too much emphasis right now on them.) The real problem with the Trump brief is, in my opinion, twofold: first, it does not effectively rebut the House brief point by point, and second, it relies on the canard of "who can tell" when it comes to the winner of the election. Biden won, end of. No court has seen evidence that it found compelling in even a minor way to prove otherwise. Trump's earlier suite of lawyers -- real lawyers, by the way, of some pedigree -- jumped off ship because they would not present falsehoods to the court on this point. Which is really the only ethical stance to take. Butch Bowers is a real lawyer, and when I saw him come on board I thought, hmmm, okay. This gonna be fun then.

 

It's not going to be fun. The House will bury Trump because he's being represented by sycophants willing to put their reputation on the line for him, and yet he will not be convicted. Frankly, it's pathetic and sad. I have heard the argument that the point of the trial is to put the evidence on the record, and so be it. But that, to my eyes, is the only point. Nothing will be resolved.

Yep!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

9 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Waiting for far greater legal minds than mine to opine on this, frankly. But the reality is that we are faced with a political process, not a legal one. Though the impeachment has the trappings of a legal process, ultimately there are very few of the guardrails of a legal trial. Rules of evidence do not apply, for one, and I do not know if the strict legal definition of "incitement" applies in an impeachment trial. I'm no constitutional lawyer -- I like money -- so like everyone else I will be watching to see what happens.

 

However, I will say that the briefs filed by the two sides are telling in their methods of presentment. The House brief is nearly exhaustive, and relies on a plethora of evidence reaching back, far back into English common law, as it should! Because impeachment is a constitutional procedure, and the constitution adopted the laws of England and Wales in existence at that time. And since those laws were based in common law, we need to look far back to centuries old procedure. It's a mildly impressive brief, a bit swaggery in its erudition, if you choose to read it.

 

Trump's side? Well, you know, sometimes you get hit with a load of manure you have to file a brief about in a matter of hours, and you just hope you don't make a bunch of typos. (Note: typos are normal, and frankly there is too much emphasis right now on them.) The real problem with the Trump brief is, in my opinion, twofold: first, it does not effectively rebut the House brief point by point, and second, it relies on the canard of "who can tell" when it comes to the winner of the election. Biden won, end of. No court has seen evidence that it found compelling in even a minor way to prove otherwise. Trump's earlier suite of lawyers -- real lawyers, by the way, of some pedigree -- jumped off ship because they would not present falsehoods to the court on this point. Which is really the only ethical stance to take. Butch Bowers is a real lawyer, and when I saw him come on board I thought, hmmm, okay. This gonna be fun then.

 

It's not going to be fun. The House will bury Trump because he's being represented by sycophants willing to put their reputation on the line for him, and yet he will not be convicted. Frankly, it's pathetic and sad. I have heard the argument that the point of the trial is to put the evidence on the record, and so be it. But that, to my eyes, is the only point. Nothing will be resolved.

Yes Lawd Yes!

[Dashinka 24,736]

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Yes Lawd Yes!

I'll bet!

[TBoneTX 45,955]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Yes Lawd Yes!

Colluding with the legal community!  Reported!!!

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Colluding with the legal community!  Reported!!!

Come on man..... Don't be a bad dude like Corn Pop..... 

 

 

Just joking ok so don't crack down on me

Edited February 5, 2021 by Cyberfx1024

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Colluding with the legal community!  Reported!!!

Reminds me of a joke

 

A man asked Paul Bear Bryant for a 10 dollar donation, for the funeral expenses of a Local lawyer that had died unexpectedly. 

 

He replied.  Here is 20 bury two of them.