President Joe Biden

[Grace T.]

You haven't presented anything except your opinion. There is no "substantiation".

Because it is an opinion. Duh

 

[espola]

He said trump wasn’t guilty if the charge leveled. Laid out other thing at his feet. All accurate. It’s hilarious you can’t comprehend that

Mitch stuck by the technicality of the Constitutionality question to explain his Not Guilty vote, then seemed to support a criminal indictment based on the same evidence presented in the impeachment trial.

 

[Grace T.]

There is a reason the Ivy Leaguers have been in charge and are the “insiders” and the ambulance chasers are advertising on TV.

yeah and it’s why you got trump.

 

[espola]

Because it is an opinion. Duh

You said that you "laid out the substantiation". What was that?

 

[Grace T.]

You said that you "laid out the substantiation". What was that?

I’m not going to endless repeat myself because you get lost and can’t follow. See above

 

[Grace T.]

Mitch stuck by the technicality of the Constitutionality question to explain his Not Guilty vote, then seemed to support a criminal indictment based on the same evidence presented in the impeachment trial.

he did not lay out a case for incitement. He laid out a case for other criminal actions and for moral condemnation.

 

[espola]

I’m not going to endless repeat myself because you get lost and can’t follow. See above

Still nothing.

 

[Grace T.]

Still nothing.

Still not comprehending.

 

[espola]

he did not lay out a case for incitement. He laid out a case for other criminal actions and for moral condemnation.

I think a non-partisan DC jury might have a different opinion than 43 partisan Senators.

 

[espola]

Still not comprehending.

You said it was just your opinion. I agree with that. You also said that you had provided substantiation. That is not true.

 

[Grace T.]

You said it was just your opinion. I agree with that. You also said that you had provided substantiation. That is not true.

I did. See above

 

[Grace T.]

I think a non-partisan DC jury might have a different opinion than 43 partisan Senators.

Dc jury? Probably. Remember even oj got off. The outcome though is dependent on greater aspects than just performance which (like so many things) you fail to comprehend.

 

[espola]

I did. See above

You haven't presented anything except your opinion. There is no "substantiation".

Because it is an opinion. Duh

 

[espola]

Dc jury? Probably. Remember even oj got off. The outcome though is dependent on greater aspects than just performance which (like so many things) you fail to comprehend.

What is it that I fail to comprehend?

 

[Grace T.]

What is it that I fail to comprehend?

The difference between an opinion and a proveable fact. I gave you the basis for my opinion

 

[Desert Hound]

The terms "jurors" and "jury" did not originate with me.

I see again you avoided answering the D question. You seemed upset Rs talked with Ts attorneys, yet remain quiet with Ds do the same thing with the prosecution side.

Why is that?

 

[espola]

The difference between an opinion and a proveable fact. I gave you the basis for my opinion

You laid on the opinion pretty thick, but really thin with the basis.

 

[Grace T.]

You laid on the opinion pretty thick, but really thin with the basis.

Well it’s an opinion and you are free to agree. I think it’s pretty self evident. Your grasp on reality is also a lot thinner than mind as far as opinions go.

 

[espola]

Well it’s an opinion and you are free to agree. I think it’s pretty self evident. Your grasp on reality is also a lot thinner than mind as far as opinions go.

Do you mean that his "legal acumen" is "self-evident"?

 

[Grace T.]

Do you mean that his "legal acumen" is "self-evident"?

I’m saying he did a good job with the cards dealt.