What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

Evidence of what? Incitement? They have none. This is a hit job.

They provided loads of evidence. So much, that Trumps main line of defence is not that he didn't but that others have done the same.

And a hit job by whom? This impeachment was a cross party vote

duploelabs

Trump's defence team have called Nancy Pelosi as a witness for the defence, it an......interesting tactic

Tell me how

stefanovich wrote: »

So you are ridiculing his lawyer. That’s constructive.

The only charge is that Trump incited violence. Anything else is superfluous.

What’s under attack is the constitution.

The democrats have highlighted their extreme hypocrisy.

I'm correctly pointing out that it appears, based on his own market focus, that he has no significant experience in debating constitutional cases or on the responsibilities of the office of the President. How is that ridiculing? How is anything on an Irish discussion forum on this topic required to be constructive? And what would that look like?

What was under the attack was the Capitol, at Trumps behest. Quit talking about the constitution, that question was resolved on Tuesday.

everlast75

stefanovich wrote: »

Evidence of what? Incitement? They have none. This is a hit job.

Hit job - check

China - check

Just waiting for "Witch hunt" next...

stefanovich

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm correctly pointing out that it appears, based on his own market focus, that he has no significant experience in debating constitutional cases or on the responsibilities of the office of the President. How is that ridiculing? How is anything on an Irish discussion forum on this topic required to be constructive? And what would that look like?

What was under the attack was the Capitol, at Trumps behest. Quit talking about the constitution, that question was resolved on Tuesday.

So the qualifications of the lawyer prove guilt? Trump’s loaded I’m sure his lawyers will do just fine.

They impeached him on charges of incitement. I’ve seen zero proof of it.

They actually suggested at one point the onus was on him to prove innocence. You couldn’t make this up.

stefanovich

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm correctly pointing out that it appears, based on his own market focus, that he has no significant experience in debating constitutional cases or on the responsibilities of the office of the President. How is that ridiculing? How is anything on an Irish discussion forum on this topic required to be constructive? And what would that look like?

What was under the attack was the Capitol, at Trumps behest. Quit talking about the constitution, that question was resolved on Tuesday.

The constitution can’t just be ignored sorry.

Due process? Move on the dems voted to ignore it. Utter sham. Embarrassing.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

They actually suggested at one point the onus was on him to prove innocence. You couldn’t make this up.

Who said this and when was it said?

MeMen2_MoRi_

stefanovich wrote: »

So the qualifications of the lawyer prove guilt? Trump’s loaded I’m sure he’s lawyers will do just fine.

They impeached him on charges of incitement. I’ve seen zero proof of it.

They actually suggested at one point the onus was on him to prove innocence. You couldn’t make this up.

No, they said that there is an inferance in a civil trial that an accuser can say things and without the defendant there to say no that is not true it can be claimed to be true as with all civil trials.

Tell me how

stefanovich wrote: »

So the qualifications of the lawyer prove guilt? Trump’s loaded I’m sure he’s lawyers will do just fine.

They impeached him on charges of incitement. I’ve seen zero proof of it.

They actually suggested at one point the onus was on him to prove innocence. You couldn’t make this up.

Are you going to make any point which is based on reality?

He's had massive trouble getting lawyers to represent him.

Allies of the outgoing president have been canvassing Washington’s legal landscape looking for representation but so far are coming up short. Lawyers who defended him in the previous impeachment trial, including Jay Sekulow and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, have said no this time, according to people familiar with the matter.

As for him being loaded? Lol.

All you are doing here is showing, as the others before you that your support for Trump is more akin to being a cult member than as a consequence of any objective reality.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Hit job - check

China - check

Just waiting for "Witch hunt" next...

Buttery males in 5 4 3 2....

MeMen2_MoRi_

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

No, they said that there is an inferance in a civil trial that an accuser can say things and without the defendant there to say no that is not true it can be claimed to be true as with all civil trials.

If that is what was actually said then it's good to know that I can ignore stefanovich as he has no idea what he is talking about.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

Buttery males in 5 4 3 2....

Rubio mentioned Hillary (yest I believe)

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

The constitution can’t just be ignored sorry.

Due process? Move on the dems voted to ignore it. Utter sham. Embarrassing.

What part specifically is being ignored?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

The constitution can’t just be ignored sorry.

Due process? Move on the dems voted to ignore it. Utter sham. Embarrassing.

You claimed the constitution is being ripped up, why? So far I have not seen anything unconstitutional happen...

robinph

stefanovich wrote: »

Evidence of what? Incitement? They have none. This is a hit job.

Was there a riot at The Capitol?
Why did that happen?
Was anyone in particular responsible for trying to convince the rioters that something was being stolen from them and that they needed to fight for it?
Was anyone who happened to have the power to tell the rioters to stop what they were doing not doing so during the riot and was instead encouraging the rioters and telling them how proud they were of the rioters or that the people being rioted against were getting what they deserved for not doing what that person wanted?

MeMen2_MoRi_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If that is what was actually said then it's good to know that I can ignore stefanovich as he has no idea what he is talking about.

That is what was literally said. This is a civil proceeding and not a criminal trial, but Donnie's lawyers at times would have you believe that this was criminal in their defense of him.

The burdon of proof is lower in cival proceedings vs criminal.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who said this and when was it said?

Jamie Raskin and I think it was during q and a.

duploelabs

stefanovich wrote: »

Jamie Raskin and I think it was during q and a.

Can you cite?

stefanovich

robinph wrote: »

Was there a riot at The Capitol?
Why did that happen?
Was anyone in particular responsible for trying to convince the rioters that something was being stolen from them and that they needed to fight for it?
Was anyone who happened to have the power to tell the rioters to stop what they were doing not doing so during the riot and was instead encouraging the rioters and telling them how proud they were of the rioters or that the people being rioted against were getting what they deserved for not doing what that person wanted?

The dems extracted 2 clips of him saying fight out of a speech where he said fight 20 times. If you watch in context it’s evident what he meant.

Trumps team then proceeded to play clips of democrats using the word fight including some of the managers.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Jamie Raskin and I think it was during q and a.

Can't find any source on that one chief. If he actually said that you would think it would be on all of the right-wing forums as they would eat it up.

stefanovich

duploelabs wrote: »

Can you cite?

Let me try to find it.

Oh and another interesting anomaly? Leahy, the most partisan dem ever presiding. It’s like allowing the prosecution to be the judge.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can't find any source on that one chief. If he actually said that you would think it would be on all of the right-wing forums as they would eat it up.

Try a search engine that is not google perhaps.

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

The dems extracted 2 clips of him saying fight out of a speech where he said fight 20 times. If you watch in context it’s evident what he meant.

Trumps team then proceeded to play clips of democrats using the word fight including some of the managers.

It doesn't matter what you think he meant, it only matters what those there did based on his words.

And there is loads of evidence of them claiming they were doing what Trump asked them to.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Let me try to find it.

Oh and another interesting anomaly? Leahy, the most partisan dem ever presiding. It’s like allowing the prosecution to be the judge.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Try a search engine that is not google perhaps.

What? You said you couldn't find it either. :rolleyes:

stefanovich

duploelabs wrote: »

Can you cite?

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/democrats-demand-trump-testify-at-senate-impeachment-trial/

MeMen2_MoRi_

Stefanovich... It would be much appreciated if you would answer this. Was the election stolen?

Tell me how

Trump is going to be acquitted today.
Was always going to happen but the Senate voting to hear witnesses and then not doing so is going to be used against Democrats for a long long time.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What? You said you couldn't find it either. :rolleyes:

I’m not your researcher and I hadn’t even looked yet.

Tippex

stefanovich wrote: »

The dems extracted 2 clips of him saying fight out of a speech where he said fight 20 times. If you watch in context it’s evident what he meant.

Trumps team then proceeded to play clips of democrats using the word fight including some of the managers.

You cannot say to watch in context and ignore the lack of context in the video that the defense used that was literally just clips of people saying fight or fight like hell.