President Joe Biden

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
The only thing I am having trouble comprehending was that post of yours. Would you like to try again? Or is that some attempt at shop talk, either way, weak.
 
The only thing I am having trouble comprehending was that post of yours. Would you like to try again? Or is that some attempt at shop talk, either way, weak.
Cant help it if you comprehend. Mcconnell conceded the evidence didn’t hold to the level of criminal incitement. Felt trump could have been charge with something else (like recklessness) if still in office and his behavior immoral. I already said I agreed. I’ve been saying for a while the ds made a tactical mistake in that regard. I liked the McConnell speech
 
Cant help it if you comprehend. Mcconnell conceded the evidence didn’t hold to the level of criminal incitement. Felt trump could have been charge with something else (like recklessness) if still in office and his behavior immoral. I already said I agreed. I’ve been saying for a while the ds made a tactical mistake in that regard. I liked the McConnell speech
You like the speech in the context of the way you misrepresented it.
 
Pretty sure a pile of poop could've been Trump's legal representation and still won. Not sure why this discussion is so complicated.

Because there's a bunch of different questions:
1. Which lawyer's did a better job? Answer: Trump's lawyers did...the House managers underperformed. Busker slighted the Trump lawyer by saying he was an ambulance chaser. He gave a pretty good case despite not being one of the Ivy League grads and did a better job than they did.
2. Was Trump guilty? Answer: No. He did not incite the crowd under the legal definition of incitement. The House managers could have brought a different charge, but they didn't. Trump was acquitted of the charge.
3., Who was going to win? Answer: Given the charge levelled, the outcome was pretty much preordained.
4. Was it a good idea then to bring the impeachment charge for incitement? Answer: Unclear. Depends on whether you believe in moral victories. Tactically it didn't work out great for the Ds (see 2 above). Their consolation prize is dividing the establishment and populist wings of the R.
5. Did the Senate have the authority to remove a President no longer sitting? Answer: Unclear but neither McConnell nor Roberts seem to think so.
7. Does that mean that Trump didn't do anything wrong? Answer: No., and that's where McConnell's speech was brilliant.
 
Because there's a bunch of different questions:
1. Which lawyer's did a better job? Answer: Trump's lawyers did...the House managers underperformed. Busker slighted the Trump lawyer by saying he was an ambulance chaser. He gave a pretty good case despite not being one of the Ivy League grads and did a better job than they did.
2. Was Trump guilty? Answer: No. He did not incite the crowd under the legal definition of incitement. The House managers could have brought a different charge, but they didn't. Trump was acquitted of the charge.
3., Who was going to win? Answer: Given the charge levelled, the outcome was pretty much preordained.
4. Was it a good idea then to bring the impeachment charge for incitement? Answer: Unclear. Depends on whether you believe in moral victories. Tactically it didn't work out great for the Ds (see 2 above). Their consolation prize is dividing the establishment and populist wings of the R.
5. Did the Senate have the authority to remove a President no longer sitting? Answer: Unclear but neither McConnell nor Roberts seem to think so.
7. Does that mean that Trump didn't do anything wrong? Answer: No., and that's where McConnell's speech was brilliant.

1. Your opinion, from a decidedly minority position. The laughter directed at the defense lawyers wasn't confined to the Senate Chamber.
2. Another opinion, especially since this was an impeachment trial which is fundamentally political in nature.
3. Agree.
4. The charge was appropriate for the crime.
5. Yes. There is a settled precedent.
6. What happened to 6? Did you delete your errors about Roberts?
7. Agree.
 
Because there's a bunch of different questions:
1. Which lawyer's did a better job? Answer: Trump's lawyers did...the House managers underperformed. Busker slighted the Trump lawyer by saying he was an ambulance chaser. He gave a pretty good case despite not being one of the Ivy League grads and did a better job than they did.
2. Was Trump guilty? Answer: No. He did not incite the crowd under the legal definition of incitement. The House managers could have brought a different charge, but they didn't. Trump was acquitted of the charge.
3., Who was going to win? Answer: Given the charge levelled, the outcome was pretty much preordained.
4. Was it a good idea then to bring the impeachment charge for incitement? Answer: Unclear. Depends on whether you believe in moral victories. Tactically it didn't work out great for the Ds (see 2 above). Their consolation prize is dividing the establishment and populist wings of the R.
5. Did the Senate have the authority to remove a President no longer sitting? Answer: Unclear but neither McConnell nor Roberts seem to think so.
7. Does that mean that Trump didn't do anything wrong? Answer: No., and that's where McConnell's speech was brilliant.

I don't think anyone ever thought the Ds would get enough Rs to join in. I didn't. If nothing else, it shows how our representative democracy is a complete failure.
 
1. Your opinion, from a decidedly minority position. The laughter directed at the defense lawyers wasn't confined to the Senate Chamber.
2. Another opinion, especially since this was an impeachment trial which is fundamentally political in nature.
3. Agree.
4. The charge was appropriate for the crime.
5. Yes. There is a settled precedent.
6. What happened to 6? Did you delete your errors about Roberts?
7. Agree.
5. What is the settled precedent?
 
1. Your opinion, from a decidedly minority position. The laughter directed at the defense lawyers wasn't confined to the Senate Chamber.
2. Another opinion, especially since this was an impeachment trial which is fundamentally political in nature.
3. Agree.
4. The charge was appropriate for the crime.
5. Yes. There is a settled precedent.
6. What happened to 6? Did you delete your errors about Roberts?
7. Agree.
As to 1 it’s a professional opinion which if dad is correct means more than yours. My bro thought it was pretty funny his roommate got schooled by a trial lawyer.

2 is not an opinion. It is now a fact since the senate agreed

4 there is no crime here. This didn’t rise to the level of incitement and didn’t meet the legal standards here

6 I’m doing multiple things here. You don’t require a very large portion of my brain power nor do you merit my full attention
 
I don't think anyone ever thought the Ds would get enough Rs to join in. I didn't. If nothing else, it shows how our representative democracy is a complete failure.
The ds failure to understand that the legal charge of incitement wasn’t met but joining in anyways in a desire to punish trump certain does show our democracy is a complete failure especially since a lot of them including the vp are guilty of similar conduct
 
Back
Top