Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Itssoeasy

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

anyone know why the senators cant ask questions directly?

I’m assuming it’s a rule that’s been in the senate since Robert Todd Lincoln was a young fella.

Water John

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

anyone know why the senators cant ask questions directly?

May be a simple way to control, as the Senators are not allowed enter into any debate, at this point.

duploelabs

Lovely leading question by Bernie.

Puts it up to the defense to toe the line about a stolen election or tell the truth and risk the wrath of trump

Itssoeasy

The lawyer for trump is a bad mood and not answering the questions.

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

anyone know why the senators cant ask questions directly?

Because some of them are under the table telling the defense what to say and it would be obvious if they were to ask a question from that position.

y0ssar1an22

ted cruz's question should be good. he has his eye on 2024

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

ted cruz's question should be good. he has his eye on 2024

maybe not

Itssoeasy

Funny how the question from cruz( who met with these lawyers) this guy has a prepared answer.

circadian

This defence is unbelievably bad. Like someone said, they make Lionel Hutz look good.

Water John

Cassidy asking a Q, this should be good. It's against Trump.

y0ssar1an22

circadian wrote: »

This defence is unbelievably bad. Like someone said, they make Lionel Hutz look good.

he's not the most energetic or engaging in fairness. but he cant prove a negative

its up to the prosecution to prove that trump incited a riot.

Water John

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

he's not the most energetic or engaging in fairness. but he cant prove a negative

its up to the prosecution to prove that trump incited a riot.

Think Raskin answered that well for you.

y0ssar1an22

i like jamie raskin, had a very hard time over the last few months.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Cassidy asking a Q, this should be good. It's against Trump.

And it was. And the trump lawyer got pissy about it. Getting annoyed and saying “but the democrats...” isn’t answering the serious questions your client has.

Itssoeasy

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i like jamie raskin, had a very hard time over the last few months.

I do too. I loved his answer to the one about democrats objecting to electors and he was able to list off the one he made and what the issue with Florida was and also the then VP Biden didn’t entertain it.

y0ssar1an22

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And it was. And the trump lawyer got pissy about it. Getting annoyed and saying “but the democrats...” isn’t answering the serious questions your client has.

yeah, he needs to give up with the whataboutery.

like, that video of the dems is completely irrelevant. at worst it demonstrates that he did incite the riot, but what about the dems, they did the same thing? why not impeach those?

irrelevant, not the question in hand should have been his answer or position.

Good Question from Senator Guganthall (unsure about spelling)

Water John

Deleted User wrote: »

Good Question from Senator Guganthall (unsure about spelling)

Bluementhal maybe?

y0ssar1an22

i'd say trump is going mad. yer man going on about the higher standard politicians should be afforded vs firefighters.

just stick with the constitution mate.

Water John

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'd say trump is going mad. yer man going on about the higher standard politicians should be afforded vs firefighters.

just stick with the constitution mate.

They won't get paid.

Headshot

I suspect if Trumps lawyers just came out and said yup he did it, no bones about it

The GOP would still vote against the impeachment

y0ssar1an22

lol...can the house mangers answer the question, that was the question.

raskin...i dont know what the question was but let me just say....

y0ssar1an22

Headshot wrote: »

I suspect if Trumps lawyers just came out and said yup he did it, no bones about it

The GOP would still vote against the impeachment

and if all evidence (which has yet to be presented) that trump actually incited a riot, how would the dems vote?

its nearly pointless.

y0ssar1an22

Water John wrote: »

They won't get paid.

they all want their air time

Tell me how

Raskin way ahead of anyone else in this phase of the proceedings. Able to quote prior case specifically, the defense attorney needs the question read again repeatedly.

y0ssar1an22

Hillary has somehow entered the debate!

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

Raskin way ahead of anyone else in this phase of the proceedings. Able to quote prior case specifically, the defense attorney needs the question read again repeatedly.

way more articulate, but he's yet to prove that trump incited a riot.

i feel sorry for patrick leahy

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

way more articulate, but he's yet to prove that trump incited a riot.

i feel sorry for patrick leahy

It's beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

Water John

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

way more articulate, but he's yet to prove that trump incited a riot.

i feel sorry for patrick leahy

Again you're making the mistake of applying the criminal law test. This is not a criminal case. As Raskin said it's about common sense.

BTW it's beyond reasonable doubt for me too, but the bar here is not even that high.

y0ssar1an22

Water John wrote: »

Again you're making the mistake of applying the criminal law test. This is not a criminal case. As Raskin said it's about common sense.

is that the test? criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt, civil is on the balance of probability.

i think trump knew exactly what he was doing, but you're into thought crimes at that stage, so you still need evidence.

has there been any?