lol
Trump lives on rent free in your head
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump's defense brief amateurish- how befitting
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
Trump lives on rent free in your head
you dismiss a case for lack of evidence -no guilt
We already had the procedural vote to dismiss
LOL at you. Every Senator will claim that Trump can't be tried once he's out of office. None of them are going to say 'Trump did nothing wrong'. At least the vast majority won't. As Micawber pointed out, this is their fig leaf. They are avoiding passing judgement on Trumps behavior at all costs.
If we had the procedural vote, then you must now agree that the Senate has decided it has the constitutional authority to try the President, and any argument to the contrary has been rendered moot by the procedural vote? You going with that? Too funny.
That implies Trump conspired to hold the rally knowing the pre-planning.. no evidence of that at all.
In fact teh Capitol police got a heads up from the FBI but they sat on it (by all accounts)
HE PARTICPATED IN THE PREPLANNING. Good grief, this might be your dumbest argument yet.
so far.. you haven't dented my arguments -so what is this nonsense?HE PARTICPATED IN THE PREPLANNING. Good grief, this might be your dumbest argument yet.
ROFL.. you need to flesh that one out.
was he supplying maps of the capitol? urging a riot? calling for an insurrection before that day?
what type of aid was he supplying?
bear in mind disputing an election is not riotous , nor "planning" for one
reagansghost
eternal
[FONT="]“The two sides’ briefs could not be more distinct in their approach: the House Managers’ brief was about the law and facts, whereas Mr. Trump’s legal team plays on political hyperbole and overblown rhetoric designed to please a party of one,” Moss said in an email. “If this were an actual trial in a court of law, as opposed to a political circus, there’d be no contest in terms of how much more weight the House Managers’ brief would hold.”
[/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-citizen-trump-defense-brief-opens-with-trump-derangement-syndrome-reference-lawyers-decry-amateurish-memo-and-overblown-rhetoric/ar-BB1dvrQG?ocid=msedgdhp"]After ‘Citizen Trump’ Defense Brief Opens with ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Reference, Lawyers Decry ‘Amateurish’ Memo and ‘Overblown Rhetoric’ (msn.com)[/URL]
One day before the House of Representatives is set to vote on impeachment, President Trump said he didn’t plan to watch the House proceedings but is looking ahead to a Senate trial.
“I’m not watching. I have not seen it. Look it’s a hoax, the whole impeachment thing is a hoax.
hahahaha..........sure you aren't traitor!
teabillies are such fools, dumb as rocks
lol
Trump lives on rent free in your head
When did your upstairs tenants move out??????
Trump is going after the procedure as extra-Constitutional (which it clearly is)
but also the fact there was no incitement, and there was pre-planning
Actually most Constitutional Lawyers disagree with that opinion, it is Constitutional, Period
Why was there preplanning, oh because they have been fed a Lie that the election was stolen and then egged on by saying that they needed to fight for their country or they would not have one. The Entire shit show was built and promoted from one main starting point, the mouth of Donald J. Trump.
so far.. you haven't dented my arguments -so what is this nonsense?
ROFL.. you need to flesh that one out.
was he supplying maps of the capitol? urging a riot? calling for an insurrection before that day?
what type of aid was he supplying?
bear in mind disputing an election is not riotous , nor "planning" for one
Was he urging a riot? yes. Was he calling for an insurrection? yes. Disputing an election through the proper forum is not riotous. He did that and lost. Claiming that Mike Pence 'needs to do the right thing' is inciting. Lying about the election being stolen is inciting. Urging people to come to the capitol to 'stop the steal' is inciting.
That implies Trump conspired to hold the rally knowing the pre-planning.. no evidence of that at all.
In fact teh Capitol police got a heads up from the FBI but they sat on it (by all accounts)
I see. So Trump just showed up by chance, and railed about the need to "fight" for his Presidency because the idea had popped into his head out of the blue.
Not a real trial, but very revealing regarding the state of the Republican party. They had two options. Look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion, or avoid the whole thing by claiming the trial is unconstitutional, thereby giving tacit approval to the Presidents behavior. The party has chosen the latter. They are now the party that is a-okay with sedition. It's that simple. One of the two major political parties no longer believes in the American system of government.
They haven't for decades.
"and march peacefully to the Capitol" is much more direct language than any nebulous interpretation of "fight"I see. So Trump just showed up by chance, and railed about the need to "fight" for his Presidency because the idea had popped into his head out of the blue.
but you are going to need to show evidence this was pre-planned by Trump
none of that comes remotely close to the term incitement - there has to be a direct appeal to another to commit a criminal offense.Was he urging a riot? yes. Was he calling for an insurrection? yes. Disputing an election through the proper forum is not riotous. He did that and lost. Claiming that Mike Pence 'needs to do the right thing' is inciting. Lying about the election being stolen is inciting. Urging people to come to the capitol to 'stop the steal' is inciting.
I can take that apart as well, but you are a blind partisan and not worth more then a cursory response
none of that comes remotely close to the term incitement - there has to be a direct appeal to another to commit a criminal offense.
I can take that apart as well, but you are a blind partisan and not worth more then a cursory response
Says the brilliant legal scholar. LOL at you. You mentioned the FBI had information that there was a credible threat. So are you going to actually suggest that the President of the United States did not know what the FBI knew? Are you going to claim that the FBI withheld that information from Trump and his administration? Fire away, genius.
te FBI didnt tell the Capitol Police -according to Cap police. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-congress-he-saw-no-fbi-intelligence-n1254075Says the brilliant legal scholar. LOL at you. You mentioned the FBI had information that there was a credible threat. So are you going to actually suggest that the President of the United States did not know what the FBI knew? Are you going to claim that the FBI withheld that information from Trump and his administration? Fire away, genius.
The FBI cooked up the Russian Hoax.. dont you think it's odd nobody outside the FBI claims they were informed?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Micawber,
It is completely absurd to expect that the American people should not be able to criticize their president.
It is unrealistic. There is no possible way on Earth for any American president to please all Americans, so it is only logical that some Americans will be critical of every president. That does not mean that those who are critical are 'deranged.' Maintaining so is being completely out of touch with the reality that American presidents are always criticized.
There are always going to be the protagonist and antagonist views on every issue. That is reality, and that is what our country and way of government is designed to operate under.
It is preposterous and extremely ludicrous to think that one's favored president is so perfect, so ideal, that he should be above criticism.
But that is the mindset that calls any criticism of Trump TDS.
“The two sides’ briefs could not be more distinct in their approach: the House Managers’ brief was about the law and facts, whereas Mr. Trump’s legal team plays on political hyperbole and overblown rhetoric designed to please a party of one,” Moss said in an email. “If this were an actual trial in a court of law, as opposed to a political circus, there’d be no contest in terms of how much more weight the House Managers’ brief would hold.”
After ‘Citizen Trump’ Defense Brief Opens with ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Reference, Lawyers Decry ‘Amateurish’ Memo and ‘Overblown Rhetoric’ (msn.com)
It is completely absurd to expect that the American people should not be able to criticize their president.
It is unrealistic. There is no possible way on Earth for any American president to please all Americans, so it is only logical that some Americans will be critical of every president. That does not mean that those who are critical are 'deranged.' Maintaining so is being completely out of touch with the reality that American presidents are always criticized.
There are always going to be the protagonist and antagonist views on every issue. That is reality, and that is what our country and way of government is designed to operate under.
It is preposterous and extremely ludicrous to think that one's favored president is so perfect, so ideal, that he should be above criticism.
But that is the mindset that calls any criticism of Trump TDS.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Good lawyers walked away from Trump; so he had to get gangster lawyers.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
The very term TDS is an ad hominem. It is a personal attack. It is changing the conversation from an issue, and making it about the other person, and attempting to establish that the other person is deranged.
Anyone who has accused me of being deranged is on my permanent Ignore List.
There has to be mutual respect for a functional discussion.
It is pointless to pursue a conversation in which the other attempts to establish a superior/inferior assumption at the outset.
That would be entering into an abuser/enabler relationship, like saying: "I will only talk to you if I have the upper hand."
No one in their right mind should enter into any such discussion.
Meaningful discussions are conducted among equals on common ground that each is an individual afforded the same basic respect.
Anyone who has accused me of being deranged is on my permanent Ignore List.
There has to be mutual respect for a functional discussion.
It is pointless to pursue a conversation in which the other attempts to establish a superior/inferior assumption at the outset.
That would be entering into an abuser/enabler relationship, like saying: "I will only talk to you if I have the upper hand."
No one in their right mind should enter into any such discussion.
Meaningful discussions are conducted among equals on common ground that each is an individual afforded the same basic respect.
te FBI didnt tell the Capitol Police -according to Cap police. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-congress-he-saw-no-fbi-intelligence-n1254075
The FBI cooked up the Russian Hoax.. dont you think it's odd nobody outside the FBI claims they were informed?
Stop evading the question. If the FBI knew wouldn't Trump have known? The FBI is not lying about knowing what was going on. I find it odd that Capitol Police claim to have known nothing. How do you explain the delay in mobilizing the guard, and why was it Mike Pence that ultimately did so? Dude, your guy is guilty as hell, and every single US Senator knows it. That's why they will hide behind procedure and political circus.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Concart,
Sad but true.
And I think Ronald Reagan had a LOT to do with that. He made it OK to hate government. He said "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
What a ridiculous thing to say! We wouldn't HAVE our country without our government. It is absurdly simplistic to decide whether or not government 'is the problem!' What a moronic thing to consider. It's not that simple. Government is a very big thing. It accomplishes a lot of functions. It makes our country a country. It is the difference between civilized society and anarchism. No. Government is not the problem. The problem is people thinking running a country could be so simplistic!
If there are issues with government performance in any particular function, then we must examine that issue and make adjustments. Running a country is very complicated. Government isn't a 'problem.' Government is a responsibility that has to be nurtured by we, the people. We run our government ourselves. Government is not a problem nor is it an enemy. Government is what we make it together, so we better start respecting one another despite our differences in view about how to run the government.
What we need to do is stop making things personal; and actually discuss the merits of the various points of view pertaining to each subject. Stay on topic, and don't talk about the other poster.
We could have some great discussions.
Actually, in between the food fights there already are some great discussions.
It would be nice to see more of them.
And what Reagan said was considered a very radical controversial thing to say at that time. No president had said that in a generation, if ever. It got attention.
Before that, America had a lot of respect for our government after our performance in WWII, saving the world; and saving America.
Reagan said that in his inaugural address on Jan 20th, 1981. This slick talking movie actor, long demeaned for being a B-movie actor, who went on to become governor of California and then president by telling people they don't have to listen to Jimmy Carter, value the merit of one's actions more than the depth of their consumerism, or try to conserve. With those words Reagan made hating the government OK. People then felt like it was perfectly acceptable to act as if that was a fact. Government is THE PROBLEM. And that little meme just took off like a snowball. Just like that, he changed the course of our nation with those few words.
Reagan made it OK to hate our own government, the same one we created ourselves, and have the power to guide in any direction.
Not long after that we had Newt Gingrich who made it OK to hate liberals. He made it OK to think of the Democratic party, not simply as holding an opposing political position, but an actual enemy. He wanted all the Republicans to be united on any position, shut out and shut down Democrats, and any who went against the Republican fold were to be cast OUT. He cut off all socializing with 'the enemy.' No more groups of lawmakers from both parties dropping their ideological differences of the day and enjoying dinner together as equals in the evening. Couldn't have it. No talking to 'the enemy.'
These guys birthed the popularism ideology of modern political hatred in the USA. If you successfully divert attention away from the issue by making it a personal battle between 'moral upstanding church-going loyal Americans' and THEM (insert everything negative bout liberals or Democrats,) then it used to be you don't lose the argument. (until recently when that just became quite blurred.)
I look at all this and go: 'Man, if you have to make it personal to avoid discussing an actual issue, then you must not have a very good basis of any possible merit to make your case on the actual issue itself!'
All Americans should be able to agree on the following:
"1. People who have the facts on their side, and have the better argument, should be the ones to prevail on any issue.
2. The losers need to accept that; and try to make a better case the next time.
3. Making things personal is not the better argument."
Not a real trial, but very revealing regarding the state of the Republican party. They had two options. Look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion, or avoid the whole thing by claiming the trial is unconstitutional, thereby giving tacit approval to the Presidents behavior. The party has chosen the latter. They are now the party that is a-okay with sedition. It's that simple. One of the two major political parties no longer believes in the American system of government.
Sad but true.
And I think Ronald Reagan had a LOT to do with that. He made it OK to hate government. He said "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
What a ridiculous thing to say! We wouldn't HAVE our country without our government. It is absurdly simplistic to decide whether or not government 'is the problem!' What a moronic thing to consider. It's not that simple. Government is a very big thing. It accomplishes a lot of functions. It makes our country a country. It is the difference between civilized society and anarchism. No. Government is not the problem. The problem is people thinking running a country could be so simplistic!
If there are issues with government performance in any particular function, then we must examine that issue and make adjustments. Running a country is very complicated. Government isn't a 'problem.' Government is a responsibility that has to be nurtured by we, the people. We run our government ourselves. Government is not a problem nor is it an enemy. Government is what we make it together, so we better start respecting one another despite our differences in view about how to run the government.
What we need to do is stop making things personal; and actually discuss the merits of the various points of view pertaining to each subject. Stay on topic, and don't talk about the other poster.
We could have some great discussions.
Actually, in between the food fights there already are some great discussions.
It would be nice to see more of them.
And what Reagan said was considered a very radical controversial thing to say at that time. No president had said that in a generation, if ever. It got attention.
Before that, America had a lot of respect for our government after our performance in WWII, saving the world; and saving America.
Reagan said that in his inaugural address on Jan 20th, 1981. This slick talking movie actor, long demeaned for being a B-movie actor, who went on to become governor of California and then president by telling people they don't have to listen to Jimmy Carter, value the merit of one's actions more than the depth of their consumerism, or try to conserve. With those words Reagan made hating the government OK. People then felt like it was perfectly acceptable to act as if that was a fact. Government is THE PROBLEM. And that little meme just took off like a snowball. Just like that, he changed the course of our nation with those few words.
Reagan made it OK to hate our own government, the same one we created ourselves, and have the power to guide in any direction.
Not long after that we had Newt Gingrich who made it OK to hate liberals. He made it OK to think of the Democratic party, not simply as holding an opposing political position, but an actual enemy. He wanted all the Republicans to be united on any position, shut out and shut down Democrats, and any who went against the Republican fold were to be cast OUT. He cut off all socializing with 'the enemy.' No more groups of lawmakers from both parties dropping their ideological differences of the day and enjoying dinner together as equals in the evening. Couldn't have it. No talking to 'the enemy.'
These guys birthed the popularism ideology of modern political hatred in the USA. If you successfully divert attention away from the issue by making it a personal battle between 'moral upstanding church-going loyal Americans' and THEM (insert everything negative bout liberals or Democrats,) then it used to be you don't lose the argument. (until recently when that just became quite blurred.)
I look at all this and go: 'Man, if you have to make it personal to avoid discussing an actual issue, then you must not have a very good basis of any possible merit to make your case on the actual issue itself!'
All Americans should be able to agree on the following:
"1. People who have the facts on their side, and have the better argument, should be the ones to prevail on any issue.
2. The losers need to accept that; and try to make a better case the next time.
3. Making things personal is not the better argument."
Last edited:
it's not a "trial" in the conventional sense. Read the language that talks about "removal"
The main use of impechmentt according to the text and POTUS precedent is removal.
The "banning" is an enhanced punishment concurrent - not instead of- "removal"
yes you are also going to see both a defense to "incitement" -
you might see Schumer on the SCOTUS steps as well telling the 2 jurors "we are coming to get you"
Nope, wrong as usual. Not a SINGLE WORD in defense of Trumps actions. Not one, even from his legal team.