Archy1221 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, knapplc said: What? If the case is “rock solid” then Obama’s DOJ will surely bring an incitement charge against Trump and surely will win that case. So we shall see if you are correct or as some others suspect, are incorrect. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Archy1221 said: If the case is “rock solid” then Obama’s DOJ will surely bring an incitement charge against Trump and surely will win that case. So we shall see if you are correct or as some others suspect, are incorrect. Is this the Obama Derangement Syndrome we've heard so much about? 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: I guess we will see how “rock solid” the case was when Obama DOJ does or doesn’t win a conviction against Trumo for incitement One of the more hilarious Freudian slips I've seen. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, knapplc said: Is this the Obama Derangement Syndrome we've heard so much about? Yep. My bad. Will rephrase to Biden DOJ. However the point stands. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Archy1221 said: Yep. My bad. Will rephrase to Biden DOJ. No worries. I feel like it's an indictment against how milquetoast and unmemorable Biden is. 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 39 minutes ago, Redux said: My conclusion is based off of reality and how the results actually concluded. I don't care what Mitch said before or after the fact, I can't believe people are trying to hold the guy to his word. The evidence was s#!t, end of story. I'm not repeating myself over and over for you. A conviction wasn't happening, they had a handful of quotes that weren't worth a piss without an admission from Trump himself that states "Why yes indeed I was hoping my supporters would interpret the things I said in a different more violent way than I said them!". Disagree all you want, the end result will be the same. Dems suck at Impeachment process. All I'm saying is that your conclusion doesn't match the nuances of reality, or the people's words who voted in the Senate. If Mitch had actually said that Trump wasn't guilty I would agree with you that apprentlty the Democrats didn't reach the appropriate threshold based on the evidence, or we'd be arguing whether or not the GOP voted in good faith; but the fact is that he did say Trump was to blame for the riots. I think a big issue is that a lot of people who think Trump isn't guilty are looking at the micro level, yourself included. You seem to think that the articles of impeachment are focused only on the events of January 6th, when they quite explicitly talk about Trump's overall body of work leading up to the storming of the capitol. Words and actions matter. At the macro level Trump created a culture of denial, conspiracy, fraud, and criminal coercion which as a whole undermine the principles and ethics of our Republic. He attempted to coerce a state government into overturning a lawful election, urged the Vice President to throw out legal votes, urged his followers to stand up and fight, and ultimately doubled down at every turn until hours after the capitol had been breached. Taken as a whole there isn't really another definition that fits besides incitment and insurrection. 2 Link to comment
Redux Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 16 minutes ago, ZRod said: All I'm saying is that your conclusion doesn't match the nuances of reality, or the people's words who voted in the Senate. If Mitch had actually said that Trump wasn't guilty I would agree with you that apprentlty the Democrats didn't reach the appropriate threshold based on the evidence, or we'd be arguing whether or not the GOP voted in good faith; but the fact is that he did say Trump was to blame for the riots. I think a big issue is that a lot of people who think Trump isn't guilty are looking at the micro level, yourself included. You seem to think that the articles of impeachment are focused only on the events of January 6th, when they quite explicitly talk about Trump's overall body of work leading up to the storming of the capitol. Words and actions matter. At the macro level Trump created a culture of denial, conspiracy, fraud, and criminal coercion which as a whole undermine the principles and ethics of our Republic. He attempted to coerce a state government into overturning a lawful election, urged the Vice President to throw out legal votes, urged his followers to stand up and fight, and ultimately doubled down at every turn until hours after the capitol had been breached. Taken as a whole there isn't really another definition that fits besides incitment and insurrection. Your entire post doesn't match reality. Reality is the evidence was all SUBJECTIVE. And if we base convictions on meeting the requirements of only the accusers desired perspective we lose our free will. I don't care if you and everyone else on the board thinks he is guilty. Hell the vote found him guilty. And still, he was aquitted. So again it truly does not matter what Mitch said at any point. It's over. And it's over because the evidence wasn't evidence, and because for some reason even after the vote favored against him and witnesses were granted.....POOF! Impeachment over. You can play 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon all you want. The Dems cut corners and got the result they wanted, another little asterisk. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, Redux said: SUBJECTIVE 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, Redux said: Your entire post doesn't match reality. Reality is the evidence was all SUBJECTIVE. And if we base convictions on meeting the requirements of only the accusers desired perspective we lose our free will. I don't care if you and everyone else on the board thinks he is guilty. Hell the vote found him guilty. And still, he was aquitted. So again it truly does not matter what Mitch said at any point. It's over. And it's over because the evidence wasn't evidence, and because for some reason even after the vote favored against him and witnesses were granted.....POOF! Impeachment over. You can play 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon all you want. The Dems cut corners and got the result they wanted, another little asterisk. I really don't think you understand how any type of trial works. Please go back and watch the video I posted the other day. Literally every piece of evidence ever presented in any trial in history is subjective. There was a plethora of evidence presented in this impeachment, and it is infact all evidence, no matter what you choose to say it is. It all goes to show a body of work that cultivated people and actions that took place in January 6th. Youseem completely unwilling to even intertain the thought that Trump, by pure definitions, should have been guilty of incitment of insurrection. Is that right? The reality is that we all new Trump wouldn't be convicted, but the greater point of this trial is historical accountability. The GOP is now on record saying they are ok with this type of behavior. And that is truly sad. 3 Link to comment
Redux Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, ZRod said: I really don't think you understand how any type of trial works. Please go back and watch the video I posted the other day. Literally every piece of evidence ever presented in any trial in history is subjective. There was a plethora of evidence presented in this impeachment, and it is infact all evidence, no matter what you choose to say it is. It all goes to show a body of work that cultivated people and actions that took place in January 6th. Youseem completely unwilling to even intertain the thought that Trump, by pure definitions, should have been guilty of incitment of insurrection. Is that right? The reality is that we all new Trump wouldn't be convicted, but the greater point of this trial is historical accountability. The GOP is now on record saying they are ok with this type of behavior. And that is truly sad. How about this, instead of trying to convince me of things that didn't happen, ask yourself why the trial suddenly ended. You can paint this story however you like, it's very detailed I'll give you that. Verbatim: Their evidence was assumption based. There was no smoking gun. And the Republicans that voted guilty did so to save face just like Mitch who doubled down after aquittal. Again, ask why the trial ended abruptly if it was such a ROCK SOLID CASE . Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, Redux said: How about this, instead of trying to convince me of things that didn't happen, ask yourself why the trial suddenly ended. You can paint this story however you like, it's very detailed I'll give you that. Verbatim: Their evidence was assumption based. There was no smoking gun. And the Republicans that voted guilty did so to save face just like Mitch who doubled down after aquittal. Again, ask why the trial ended abruptly if it was such a ROCK SOLID CASE . You're confusing two things: the evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evidence. The evidence presented was audio, video, text, witness testimonies, etc. None of that is an assumption - it's just the facts. What conclusions are drawn from that evidence is of course based on both the evidence and a lot of assumptions, but that's true for every conclusion ever drawn in or out of a court. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, Redux said: How about this, instead of trying to convince me of things that didn't happen, ask yourself why the trial suddenly ended. You can paint this story however you like, it's very detailed I'll give you that. Verbatim: Their evidence was assumption based. There was no smoking gun. And the Republicans that voted guilty did so to save face just like Mitch who doubled down after aquittal. Again, ask why the trial ended abruptly if it was such a ROCK SOLID CASE . I would love to know why Democrat Senators didn’t actually want witnesses. What are they hiding? 1 Link to comment
Redux Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 So the evidence was trash, hence the acquittal. Glad we sorted that out. Just now, Archy1221 said: I would love to know why Democrat Senators didn’t actually want witnesses. What are they hiding? IRRELEVANT! MOSCOW MITCH!!!!! Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Redux said: So the evidence was trash, hence the acquittal. Glad we sorted that out. You can draw that conclusion if you want, but given that Repubs were already talking about acquitting before seeing the evidence and the long history of partisan voting in impeachment trials, it's pretty tenuous that the acquittal is based on the evidence. 1 Link to comment
Redux Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, RedDenver said: You can draw that conclusion if you want, but given that Repubs were already talking about acquitting before seeing the evidence and the long history of partisan voting in impeachment trials, it's pretty tenuous that the acquittal is based on the evidence. Evidence including doctored tweets I hear! "Rock Solid Case" Link to comment
Recommended Posts