impeach Trump?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

Orange man bad is what you are saying. Got it. 

I don't know Donald Trump. Never met him. Likely never will. All I have to go on is the decades of public persona he has built up.

Some of you believe that the mob linked golden spoon trust funder with bone spurs who managed to bankrupt a casino, suddenly became some Uber patriot playing 4d chess with the establishment in defense of the little guy.

I find it much more likely that he's the same scumbag he's always been, but happens to have very shrewdly tapped into a sentiment that got him into the big chair. 

Could I be stone cold wrong? Sure.

Should he have been impeached? As I said above, no, based on what I have seen.

Would I vote for him in 2020? Based on the disgusting clown show the left has become, that looks likely, as much as I absolutely would hate having to do so. 

[shorepatrol 1,871]

21 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

I don't know Donald Trump. Never met him. Likely never will. All I have to go on is the decades of public persona he has built up.

 

Nooooooo, you are for his policy or you are not. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

Nooooooo, you are for his policy or you are not. 

I'm for some of them. Others I'm not. Like any president. 

[shorepatrol 1,871]

Just now, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

I'm for some of them. Others I'm not. Like any president. 

Me too. I'll vote for anybody that is America first (Immigration, trade etc) I really like the gov not taking my money and liberty's too. Don't take my money, don't take my liberty and freedom. The libs want both. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Just now, shorepatrol said:

Me too. I'll vote for anybody that is America first (Immigration, trade etc) I really like the gov not taking my money and liberty's too. Don't take my money, don't take my liberty and freedom. The libs want both. 

Sadly, I tend to agree. I don't understand the pro immigration side at all. I mean I'm all for legal immigration, but the open border sanctuary situation is madness.

The main reason I would support Trump is the trade war. China is getting more and more aggressive. We have to stand up. No one else can or will. We are rapidly approaching a new Hitler moment, and the dems are Neville chamberlain. 

[Cloaca du jour 2,157]

I was reading an article that this dog and pony show is hurting the dems in the polls...not suprising... 

[shorepatrol 1,871]

1 minute ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Sadly, I tend to agree.

Why sadly? 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

2 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Personally, I see it down the middle.

I absolutely think Trump did a quid pro quo deal to try to tarnish a rival.

That said, I have seen no evidence of same worthy of a conviction. Thus he shouldn't be convicted.

The impeachment proceeding is political grandstanding just like Clinton's was. 

Huh? Your first and second paragraphs seem contradictory

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Huh? Your first and second paragraphs seem contradictory

The first means I think he probably did it.

The second means I havent seen conclusive evidence.

What I have seen is a bunch of suggestive stuff that, to me, makes it look like he probably did, but not evidence that rises to a legal standard.

More clear counselor? 

[sderk 1,040]

7 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

The first means I think he probably did it.

The second means I havent seen conclusive evidence.

What I have seen is a bunch of suggestive stuff that, to me, makes it look like he probably did, but not evidence that rises to a legal standard.

More clear counselor? 

Why do you think he did it if there is absolutely no evidence? The left has had it out for him since prior to his election.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

1 hour ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

The first means I think he probably did it.

The second means I havent seen conclusive evidence.

What I have seen is a bunch of suggestive stuff that, to me, makes it look like he probably did, but not evidence that rises to a legal standard.

More clear counselor? 

I guess but jeez, you know circumstantial is as good as direct evidence. And you’ve got Mulvaney saying they did it and go eat a bag of d1cks we’ll do it again. Then you’ve got Sondland saying well I understood it came from Trump but being all coy like gee I “can’t remember” if he actually told me that. Cmon man, you were a lawyer once. Were it your client you’d be saying fock it’s an open and shut case, we’re screwed

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,543]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I guess but jeez, you know circumstantial is as good as direct evidence. And you’ve got Mulvaney saying they did it and go eat a bag of d1cks we’ll do it again. Then you’ve got Sondland saying well I understood it came from Trump but being all coy like gee I “can’t remember” if he actually told me that. Cmon man, you were a lawyer once. Were it your client you’d be saying fock it’s an open and shut case, we’re screwed

no an actual lawyer would say there is no hard evidence, the transcripts say nothing about Biden

you cant be convicted from hearsay or opinion

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

no an actual lawyer would say there is no hard evidence, the transcripts say nothing about Biden

you cant be convicted from hearsay or opinion

 

Well you’re absolutely wrong on both fronts

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I mean he literally focking referenced Biden several times on the summary. Jesus Christ you guys can’t just make sh1t up like this. We call those kind of people LIARS

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,543]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well you’re absolutely wrong on both fronts

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/read-white-house-transcript-trump-zelensky-call/index.html

shrug, no mention of Biden again

show me a conviction with zero evidence

and quite frankly I dont give a sh1t if Biden is corrupt especially while acting as a VP the president should do everything he can to investigate

[IGotWorms 4,063]

6 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/read-white-house-transcript-trump-zelensky-call/index.html

shrug, no mention of Biden again

show me a conviction with zero evidence

and quite frankly I dont give a sh1t if Biden is corrupt especially while acting as a VP the president should do everything he can to investigate

That’s the first call, liar

[RLLD 4,275]

6 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I mean he literally focking referenced Biden several times on the summary. Jesus Christ you guys can’t just make sh1t up like this. We call those kind of people LIARS

And I hope he sees that through too, I am hopeful that by figuring out the way in which the Ukrainians used Biden's son to influence the 2016 election we can prevent that same method from being used again.

[MDC 7,887]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

And I hope he sees that through too, I am hopeful that by figuring out the way in which the Ukrainians used Biden's son to influence the 2016 election we can prevent that same method from being used again.

How did the Ukraine use Biden’s son to influence the 2016 election? I thought Hunter’s job was just routine influence peddling: We hire this guy who has the ear of a DC lifer and this helps us get favorable legislation etc. I didn’t know this was part of a plot to win the election.

[RLLD 4,275]

9 minutes ago, MDC said:

How did the Ukraine use Biden’s son to influence the 2016 election? I thought Hunter’s job was just routine influence peddling: We hire this guy who has the ear of a DC lifer and this helps us get favorable legislation etc. I didn’t know this was part of a plot to win the election.

That is what I would like to know.  Did it happen?  There is some suggestion of something amiss here, and we had less to go on for investigations into Trump to start. I think it is important to our nations interest to understand if, and then how, our elections might have been influences by this clearly suspicious arrangement.

[MDC 7,887]

14 minutes ago, RLLD said:

That is what I would like to know.  Did it happen?  There is some suggestion of something amiss here, and we had less to go on for investigations into Trump to start. I think it is important to our nations interest to understand if, and then how, our elections might have been influences by this clearly suspicious arrangement.

I’m just wondering how Hunter working for an oil company in Ukraine helps Hillary at all? 

[jerryskids 7,085]

10 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Sadly, I tend to agree. I don't understand the pro immigration side at all. I mean I'm all for legal immigration, but the open border sanctuary situation is madness.

The main reason I would support Trump is the trade war. China is getting more and more aggressive. We have to stand up. No one else can or will. We are rapidly approaching a new Hitler moment, and the dems are Neville chamberlain. 

Great analogy, unfortunately.

[RLLD 4,275]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m just wondering how Hunter working for an oil company in Ukraine helps Hillary at all? 

Great question, let's find out.  If we have a suspicion then we investigate until we find something, then he has to prove he is innocent....

[MDC 7,887]

Just now, RLLD said:

Great question, let's find out.  If we have a suspicion then we investigate until we find something, then he has to prove he is innocent....

Go ahead. Just wondering what the premise was.

[RLLD 4,275]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Go ahead. Just wondering what the premise was.

I am keenly interested in how, and to a lesser extend who , the 2016 election was tampered with.  This is central to our democracy as we want to inhibit to the fullest possible extent that kind of outside influence.  Only by understanding can we then act.

So therefore I hope Trump continues to try to harvest this, particularly given the obvious temperment on the part of some political persons against him finding this out. Clearly there is something there that folks do not wish to be found.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

51 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m just wondering how Hunter working for an oil company in Ukraine helps Hillary at all? 

An "oil company".    Climb back in your safe space trolldc. 

[MDC 7,887]

24 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

An "oil company".    Climb back in your safe space trolldc. 

I take this to mean you have no idea how Hunter Biden was supposed to help Hillary either.  

[TimmySmith 2,783]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

I take this to mean you have no idea how Hunter Biden was supposed to help Hillary either.  

C+.  I get the feeling your heart really isn't in it these days. 

 

On another note what a sad headline.  Shows how little the press thinks of the left's knowledge of basic civics.

"Trump was impeached with more votes against him than any other president"

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-impeachment-president-got-more-votes-against-than-anyone-else-2019-12?utm_source=reddit.com

 

 

[MDC 7,887]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

C+.  I get the feeling your heart really isn't in it these days. 

You too. You just say dumb stuff without even knowing what it means.  

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Just now, MDC said:

You too. You just say dumb stuff without even knowing what it means.  

C-.  Trending down.  

[Strike 6,023]

9 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I guess but jeez, you know circumstantial is as good as direct evidence. And you’ve got Mulvaney saying they did it and go eat a bag of d1cks we’ll do it again. Then you’ve got Sondland saying well I understood it came from Trump but being all coy like gee I “can’t remember” if he actually told me that. Cmon man, you were a lawyer once. Were it your client you’d be saying fock it’s an open and shut case, we’re screwed

You need to learn the difference between "hearsay" and "circumstantial" evidence.  They teach that in law school.  Maybe you should apply.

[Gladiators 2,032]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

You need to learn the difference between "hearsay" and "circumstantial" evidence.  They teach that in law school.  Maybe you should apply.

Where does "heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend" fall?  What about "feelings" and "assumptions?"  Direct?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

The democrats ran their impeachment inquiry they wanted to, over the objections of the minority. The used an obviously one sided process. Now they want to tell the senate how to run their trial. Who do these people think they are? So used to stomping and crying like children to get their way. 

[Big Guy 1,421]

 

[RLLD 4,275]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The democrats ran their impeachment inquiry they wanted to, over the objections of the minority. The used an obviously one sided process. Now they want to tell the senate how to run their trial. Who do these people think they are? So used to stomping and crying like children to get their way. 

I think you captured the Democrats pretty well

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Remember back in the 2000's and the republicans had idiots and freaks like Michelle Bachman and Joe Walsh jumping in front of the camera every two seconds? Anyone see what the left was trotting out there yesterday? Al Green!,  plus other assorted fruits and nuts. Lol. You gotta be a cuck to be down with this bunch. 

[Fireballer 2,677]

11 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I guess but jeez, you know circumstantial is as good as direct evidence.

Why do you say this?  I know you have some legal experience so you should know better.  My "lane" if you will, is arson.  Ive taken a ton of circumstantial cases to trial.  Thats just the nature of arson, theres rarely a smoking gun. Go research the national average of closure of arson cases.  Its way low because of the inability to bring alot of direct evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence.  I cringe when I hear a defense attorney say..."ladies and gentlmen of the jury, the prosecution had shown no direct evidence that my client did....blah blah blah."  If our only charge is arson with no direct evidence, 99% of the time it doesnt go to trial.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,543]

37 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Why do you say this?  I know you have some legal experience so you should know better.  My "lane" if you will, is arson.  Ive taken a ton of circumstantial cases to trial.  Thats just the nature of arson, theres rarely a smoking gun. Go research the national average of closure of arson cases.  Its way low because of the inability to bring alot of direct evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence.  I cringe when I hear a defense attorney say..."ladies and gentlmen of the jury, the prosecution had shown no direct evidence that my client did....blah blah blah."  If our only charge is arson with no direct evidence, 99% of the time it doesnt go to trial.

Trumptard obviously no correlation or something, I will answer for WiffWorms

 

[sderk 1,040]

42 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Why do you say this?  I know you have some legal experience so you should know better.  My "lane" if you will, is arson.  Ive taken a ton of circumstantial cases to trial.  Thats just the nature of arson, theres rarely a smoking gun. Go research the national average of closure of arson cases.  Its way low because of the inability to bring alot of direct evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence.  I cringe when I hear a defense attorney say..."ladies and gentlmen of the jury, the prosecution had shown no direct evidence that my client did....blah blah blah."  If our only charge is arson with no direct evidence, 99% of the time it doesnt go to trial.

His legal experience is watching old reruns of the Andy Griffith show. He pays close attention to Barney. 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

Why do you say this?  I know you have some legal experience so you should know better.  My "lane" if you will, is arson.  Ive taken a ton of circumstantial cases to trial.  Thats just the nature of arson, theres rarely a smoking gun. Go research the national average of closure of arson cases.  Its way low because of the inability to bring alot of direct evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence.  I cringe when I hear a defense attorney say..."ladies and gentlmen of the jury, the prosecution had shown no direct evidence that my client did....blah blah blah."  If our only charge is arson with no direct evidence, 99% of the time it doesnt go to trial.

I guess mostly because there’s tons of standard jury instructions out there that are given in nearly every case and say the exact same thing as I did.

For example see this out of the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals: 

 

1.12 DEFINITION OF “DIRECT” AND “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” EVIDENCE
You may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.” Direct evidence is proof that does not require an inference, such as the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of a fact. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact, or a series of facts, that tends to show that some other fact is true.
As an example, direct evidence that it is raining is testimony from a the witness who says, “I was outside a minute ago and I saw it raining.” Circumstantial evidence that it is raining is the observation of someone entering a room carrying a wet umbrella.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. You should decide how much weight to give to any evidence. In reaching your verdict, you should consider all the evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence.

 

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/7thcivinstruc2005.pdf

 

But yeah I’m Barney Fife and have no idea what I’m talking about

[vuduchile 1,947]

Is it even reasonable for either party to expect foreign countries not to try to influence our elections?  

Foreign lobbyists already spend billions trying to influence US policy.  Of course they’re going to lobby for certain candidates who are favorable to their causes.