Ouch # 2 (1 Viewer)

[jpl458]

It appeares that the mythical Presidential Vaccine does not work at making a President immune from prosecution. I keep wondering when the winning part starts.

 

[Isaac]

I keep wondering when the winning part starts.

The polls may point you to the answer

 

[jpl458]

Latest poll indicates that if Trump is convicted then Biden will win. But the second shoe has just fallen. Trump just asked for more money from the devout. The only person responsible for Trumps problems, is Trump, himself. I would ask, how do you "rig" sooo many judges in soooo many places. Everytime Trump looses, he lies. Where is the proof taht Biden is behind this. There is zero, zip, nada proof. Real, actual, tangible proof, not supposition.

 

[Isaac]

I find those polls kind of interesting, though. Yes, on some of them people are saying if Trump is convicted of this or that, then I wouldn't vote for him. But the Carroll thing is over, and several others look pretty bad for Trump, I mean it's obvious. Yet, Trump still is competitive (loses or wins by a bit) with Biden in the general election polling. I think a lot more people are claiming they would change their vote (maybe they feel that's the right thing to say) than actually would or are.

I personally think very few people will change a vote From trump to Against trump due to a conviction on, especially, the documents case.

And as for how you rig so many judges in so many places, well there's an easy answer to that. Presidents appoint federal judges. Often times they appoint dozens, even hundreds, during their administration. Obviously, they appoint the ones leaning to their side. Democrats appoint liberals, Republicans appoint conservatives. It's totally partisan.

Presidents on both sides have been AGGRESSIVELY playing this game for many years now, and they do it well. That's the real, actual proof.

Very easy to convict Trump of anything in a city where every jury leans liberal at best.

And yes, if Biden gets convicted of something in BFE, Texas by a conservative-appointed federal judge, I will gladly also admit that Trump is, in a way, behind it - as he deliberately appointed who he appointed.

 

[jpl458]

What about the conserative judges that ruled against Trump, how were they turned? No person is above the law in this country. How were the grand juries turned that indicted Trump? All of the criminal indictements against Trump required the vote of a grand jury. All 4 of them voted to indict, based on factual evidence. In one of the grand juries there was an ardent Trump supporter, that said he had to go with the law, and voted to indict.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Let's see how it plays out. I don't see any real crimes other than political hit jobs against Biden's strongest opponent. The voters see it too and will have something to say about it on election redemption day.

The Impeachment Judgment Clause provides that “[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. That language limits the consequences of impeachment to removal and disqualification from office, but explicitly preserves the option of criminal prosecution of an impeached official “according to Law.”

For instance, this one is clearly a twisted reading of the constitution as it claims there is some sort of a preservation of criminal prosecution which is irrelevant because he was improperly impeached after being out of office in order to magically preserve this option! It was a sham impeachment designed to clearly walk all over the constitution and extend further from the removal of office. So what part of shall not extend further than removal from office did they observe? They did not, because they do not follow the constitution, they make things up according to their agenda. They purposely extended further so that they could cling to the criminal prosecution part and magically make the impeachment possibly viable by simply going through the motions anyway to see if anyone would notice. There are no high crimes an misdemeanors to speak of in this at all. That's what impeachments are for. You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance. There is nothing in what he did that was overthrowing the election as they claim. Those are gross claims of exaggerations on what happened.

 

[jpl458]

Let's see how it plays out. I don't see any real crimes other than political hit jobs against Biden's strongest opponent. The voters see it too and will have something to say about it on election redemption day.


For instance, this one is clearly a twisted reading of the constitution as it claims there is some sort of a preservation of criminal prosecution which is irrelevant because he was improperly impeached after being out of office in order to magically preserve this option! It was a sham impeachment designed to clearly walk all over the constitution and extend further from the removal of office. So what part of shall not extend further than removal from office did they observe? They did not, because they do not follow the constitution, they make things up according to their agenda. They purposely extended further so that they could cling to the criminal prosecution part and magically make the impeachment possibly viable by simply going through the motions anyway to see if anyone would notice. There are no high crimes an misdemeanors to speak of in this at all. That's what impeachments are for. You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance. There is nothing in what he did that was overthrowing the election as they claim. Those are gross claims of exaggerations on what happened.

It is not a twisted reading of the Constitution, according to legal scholars, and judges in the 3rd curcuit court. Read the opinion that refutes Trumps claim on imunity from the 3 judge panel of the circuit court. It's about 57 pages long. BTW, one of the three judges is a taunch conservative who voted with the other 2. It is about the law, not about the way you want it to be.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Obviously, they appoint the ones leaning to their side. Democrats appoint liberals, Republicans appoint conservatives. It's totally partisan.

And that is one of the issues with our criminal "justice" system. Judges are supposed to be impartial and use the Constitution for guidance in their decisions.

 

[Isaac]

I think Trump's best claim to stay on the ballot isn't what they're mostly talking about.

The simplest answer is: Okay, you think he's an insurrectionist. That's nice, but secretaries of state don't adjudicate criminal claims.

When he's tried and convicted by a jury of insurrection, let me know. Then we can talk about the ballot

 

[moke123]

You are allowed to do contest the results of an election and have alternate electors make backup plans for his grievance.

Please point us to the citation.

Simplest solution - Follow the constitution

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[Isaac]

Please point us to the citation.

Why do you need a citation to disallow you to do something?
Show me the citation that says you can't grab a piece of paper and make a list of alternates, should your legal case succeed?

 

[Mike Krailo]

Please point us to the citation.

Your kidding right? If an election is in fact fraudulent or in question in some way, then is he or any other president supposed to bend over and just take it? Making backup plans especially when you determine that there is good reason to believe there was major problems due to the way things were handled (covid caused all kinds of problems), is crucial for beating the clock. Massive mail-in ballots that cannot be properly verified or contested is not fair for either party. There is way more to it than that and unfortunately more time was needed to combat the situation and parse through everything. Like in a chess match, you can lose on time. Unlike a chess match, there were many many small details that were overlooked on purpose in an effort to launder more votes for JB. I for one will never believe that such an incompetent man of corruption could ever get the amount of votes that were tallied in his favor. Never.

The funny thing is, if Trump does indeed win the next election, the democrat's will be doing the same kind of complaining of election fraud the moment he wins. Anyone want to take me up on that bet?

 

[jpl458]

And that is one of the issues with our criminal "justice" system. Judges are supposed to be impartial and use the Constitution for guidance in their decisions.

Are saying that if a judge rules against Trump that judge is not impartial? Why then did so many conservative judges rule against Trump, were they all cooerced, bribed, given the Vulcan Mind Meld? Maybe, you might consider that The Don actually broke some laws. His, and his lawyers claim of imunity was pure hokum.

 

[Jon]

I It is about the law, not about the way you want it to be.

But its not really, is it. Just compare how the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh when he was going through the vetting process to become a supreme court judge. He gets a sexual assault accusation from 35 years prior with zero evidence except the word of Ms Ford. All Democrats, 100% of them, said they believe the woman. Yet when Joe Biden gets an accusation against him from a long time ago, 100% of Democrats believe the man!

So whatever you want to convince yourself, Democrats have proven here that they don't give a damn about the truth or the law, only about winning against the other side, whatever that takes. And that includes trashing someones reputation without due regard for the facts, combined with 100% political bias.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Hilary knows in her little black heart that she won 2016

 

[Jon]

Are saying that if a judge rules against Trump that judge is not impartial?

So you think Mar-a-Lago is worth $18M, like the judge Arthur Engoron believes?

 

[jpl458]

But its not really, is it. Just compare how the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh when he was going through the vetting process to become a supreme court judge. He gets a sexual assault accusation from 35 years prior with zero evidence except the word of Ms Ford. All Democrats, 100% of them, said they believe the woman. Yet when Joe Biden gets an accusation against him from a long time ago, 100% of Democrats believe the man!

So whatever you want to convince yourself, Democrats have proven here that they don't give a damn about the law, only about winning against the other side, whatever that takes. And that includes trashing someones reputation without due regard for the fact, combined with 100% political bias.

Not talking about belief. Talking about the law which requires facts. Trump was not indicted because sombody believed he did something they didn't like. Read the indictments. And the evidence was was prresented to grand juries, made up of common folk, who voted to indict. Please, tell me how all those people could be cooerced into voting that way. Trump in victim of his own making and everytime he looses he lies, then asks for money. Kavanaugh was confirmed by Republicans, that was politices, and that is the way that works. I can't see how you can compare a congressional hearing to a person who broke the law.

 

[jpl458]

So you think Mar-a-Lago is worth $18M, like the judge Arthur Engoron believes?

That's not an answer to my question, but a deflection. Do you think that all the conservative judges that ruled agaist Trump were less than impartial. Simple question.

 

[jpl458]

Deflection. WhatAboutism.

 

[Jon]

I can't see how you can compare a congressional hearing to a person who broke the law.

I think I understand what you are saying. You mean that if a potential president rapes someone, then it is different to if a potential supreme court Justice rapes someone. Or in other words, some rapes are ok to lie about, but others aren't. And you are making a false comparison, because I am not comparing a congressional hearing to someone who broke the law. Instead, I am comparing a group of people who say they believe someone broke the law with another group of people who say the believe someone didn't break the law.

Not talking about belief. Talking about the law which requires facts.

If it is not about belief, why do they have a jury decide? But why have a jury when you have already decided on guilt pre-trial.