The Impeachment Thread

#29,227
#29,227
luthervol said:
Again, I'll always take slight issue with "duly" elected.
He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I see a dead body and a person standing over the body covered in blood and holding a knife, I will have confidence in my assumption that the person is guilty of murder. I'll acknowledge that there is the slightest of possibilities that he happened upon the body, tried to revive it (explaining why he is covered in blood) and just happened to pick up the murder weapon right before I saw him. But it is on him to prove his innocence at that point. Once it can be reasonably assumed that a person is guilty, it becomes necessary for that person to offer a defense. Trump has blocked every single person around him with first hand knowledge from testifying.
Maybe the Senate will actually require the witnesses to testify, but the house was able to impeach without their testimony.
Click to expand...
Uttering the term "prove his innocence" is disgusting. you arent reasonable with that. at all.
 
#29,228
#29,228
MontyPython said:
If there's any insight that I've learned from Trump's "adventures in presidenting", it's the gullibility of the general public.

Gaslighting really works.

It's an amazing human psychological condition to see otherwise perfectly normal, reasonable people brought to heel by an unrelenting, false, parallel reality of facts.

Shocking, amazing, and confounding all rolled into one.

I truly believe that such cult of personality is exactly what fueled the insanity of 1930's Germany. With 20/20 hindsight, it's obvious now how stupid, hateful and abhorrent it all was. But at the time, the rise of hate-mongering nationalism was likely a source of pride for many.

Hope we don't go down that rabbit hole as a nation...
Click to expand...
Excellent post!!
My sentiments exactly.
Unfortunately, only historical perspective will prove how spot on you are.
 
#29,232
#29,232
hog88 said:
Elections
Click to expand...
So youl are saying we should just wholesale take a sharpie to the constitution. No more impeachment. The presidency is like one of those carnival attractions where they put you in the tube and blow money around and you grab as much of it as you can for 4 years and you should lie to the public and try to keep it hidden so maybe you can get 4 more years.

You’re cool with that. Those posts about how John McCain got his money were just mistakes. This is your ideal?
 
#29,233
#29,233
Boston Vol said:
Who is you guys? Trump can die in his sleep tonight for all I care. Funny how you trotted out the Fox poll. So I guess it’s cool for you to cherry pick a poll that fits your narrative. But don’t worry this will all be decided at the polls next November. I’ll play spoiler for you, you’re not going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...

Lol. Who said anything about your penchant for caring about Trump? Talk about trying to control a narrative.... I was referring to the rights disdain for polls post 2016. You are on the right, so yes, you guys. Own it.

If the RCP average is the standard, I'm totally good with that - though the polls there arent congruent with your 'spoiler' prediction which you guys seem to embrace.
 
#29,234
#29,234
RockyTop85 said:
So youl are saying we should just wholesale take a sharpie to the constitution. No more impeachment. The presidency is like one of those carnival attractions where they put you in the tube and blow money around and you grab as much of it as you can for 4 years and you should lie to the public and try to keep it hidden so maybe you can get 4 more years.

You’re cool with that. Those posts about how John McCain got his money were just mistakes. This is your ideal?
Click to expand...
There shouldn't be a purely partisan impeachment, seems I've heard a few people say that before. There should be a high standard to impeach, this phone call doesn't come close. This was a very weak and terrible effort put forth by the extreme left
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, GVF, NurseGoodVol and 2 others
#29,236
#29,236
McDad said:
I just read a transcript posted

I just read a transcript posted on PBS. Sondland said Guiliani had a qpq. And that he and Giuliani did not act improperly. He also said to Turner there's no evidence of qpq with Trump.
Click to expand...
I'll take things a criminal say would say for $2000, Alex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#29,237
#29,237
Boston Vol said:
Who is you guys? Trump can die in his sleep tonight for all I care. Funny how you trotted out the Fox poll. So I guess it’s cool for you to cherry pick a poll that fits your narrative. But don’t worry this will all be decided at the polls next November. I’ll play spoiler for you, you’re not going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...
Well, some of us might like the outcome in November.
 
#29,238
#29,238
luthervol said:
Then don't, and just live with the fact that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Standing over the body won't and should never convict someone or ever be considered "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". You need additional evidence. Is there sign of a struggle and does the alleged perp have any marks? If not, can you connect the two in any way? I can continue but for simplicity, I'll stop it there. If not you are going to argue that the victim accepted being stabbed without a fight from someone they didnt know all because you walked up and saw someone after the murder was already committed. If that's your standard, you're a moron.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. without additional and direct physical evidence, REASONABLE DOUBT STILL EXISTS.

I bet you are troubled every time a newly discovered innocent person is released from prison after a conviction is overturned. You should be. But to turn around and diminish the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt is gross ignorance of the foundation of this country's justice system.
 
#29,241
#29,241
utvols88 said:
Standing over the body won't and should never convict someone or ever be considered "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". You need additional evidence. Is there sign of a struggle and does the alleged perp have any marks? If not, can you connect the two in any way? I can continue but for simplicity, I'll stop it there. If not you are going to argue that the victim accepted being stabbed without a fight from someone they didnt know all because you walked up and saw someone after the murder was already committed. If that's your standard, you're a moron.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. without additional and direct physical evidence, REASONABLE DOUBT STILL EXISTS.

I bet you are troubled every time a newly discovered innocent person is released from prison after a conviction is overturned. You should be. But to turn around and diminish the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt is gross ignorance of the foundation of this country's justice system.
Click to expand...
Is trump facing prison?
 
#29,242
#29,242
RockyTop85 said:
So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?
Click to expand...

We discussed this very theme last week, i think. My answer today is almost as it was then. Additionally, if Trump is violating the constitutional mandates regarding the impeachment process, then it should be another nail in his coffin for impeachment. However, it isn't one of the articles of impeachment listed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#29,243
#29,243
RockyTop85 said:
Is trump facing prison?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. His analogy was a murder. I addressed his principles of justice. The term 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is misunderstood by him as a standard. That needs to be addressed at the macro level first.

Also the standard for impeachment is not the same as a civil trial so drop that horseshit narrative.
 
#29,245
#29,245
utvols88 said:
Doesn't matter. His analogy was a murder. I addressed his principles of justice. The term 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is misunderstood by him as a standard. That needs to be addressed at the macro level first.

Also the standard for impeachment is not the same as a civil trial so drop that horseshit narrative.
Click to expand...
What’s the standard for impeachment?
 
#29,247
#29,247
utvols88 said:
Standing over the body won't and should never convict someone or ever be considered "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". You need additional evidence. Is there sign of a struggle and does the alleged perp have any marks? If not, can you connect the two in any way? I can continue but for simplicity, I'll stop it there. If not you are going to argue that the victim accepted being stabbed without a fight from someone they didnt know all because you walked up and saw someone after the murder was already committed. If that's your standard, you're a moron.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. without additional and direct physical evidence, REASONABLE DOUBT STILL EXISTS.

I bet you are troubled every time a newly discovered innocent person is released from prison after a conviction is overturned. You should be. But to turn around and diminish the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt is gross ignorance of the foundation of this country's justice system.
Click to expand...
You left off "covered in blood and holding the murder weapon". I would think that if innocent, that person would jump at the chance of defending himself, explaining the circumstances, and providing any witnesses that could help exonerate him.
Or he could say, I'm not cooperating and will fight to keep any witness with information from testifying.
 
#29,249
#29,249
BigOrangeD said:
The Entire Obama Administration was corrupt so easy to believe.

EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW
SEE IT: Giuliani says he forced out former Ukraine ambassador because she was 'corrupt'
Click to expand...








This.

Is.

Your.

Boy.

tenor (7).gif

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.

Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorientating the victim. The term originated from the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gas Light and its 1940 and 1944 film adaptations (both titled Gaslight), in which a character tries to make his wife believe that she has gone insane to cover his criminal activities. When he turns up the gas-fueled lights in the upstairs apartment in order to search for a murdered woman's jewels, the gaslights in his own apartment grow dimmer but he convinces his wife that she is imagining the change. The term has been used in clinical and research literature, as well as in political commentary.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top