Errrr....”roadhog”....crash!
Your tell is showing.
Errrr....”roadhog”....crash!
Over 90% of DC vote left...but non-partisan. LOL! Good one magoo!I think a non-partisan DC jury might have a different opinion than 43 partisan Senators.
My tell only comes into effect when you’ve totally crashed off the road. It says as much about where I am as where you are. “Crash!”Your tell is showing.
Yes you have.No, I haven't.
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.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
And what happened in the Brown/Goldman civil suit against the juice?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.
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 speechThe 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.
Different jury (take a guess as to one of the differences). Different standard tooAnd what happened in the Brown/Goldman civil suit against the juice?
That’s what the ‘Philadelphia lawyer’ claimed.More opinions?
You like the speech in the context of the way you misrepresented it.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
So good luck mr trump.Different jury (take a guess as to one of the differences). Different standard too
Hey I can’t help what your fevered delusions misunderstandYou 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.
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.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?
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 conductI 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.