The Right Side of the News

lie

OK I'll give another answer to this. Who cares what "many" say? In this case there were millions of conservatives who knew it was the opposite of waging war, but aimed at stopping the aggression, and since it was long overdue because Solameini had been getting away with murdering hundreds of Americans it was not "waging" anything, it was responding to years of murder, which the war alarmist contingent seems to think we should have gone on tolerating. . AND apparently also we had reason to anticipate anther attack since the man was in Baghdad with a Hezbollah leader, prepared to do just that, a likelihood no doubt buttressed by intelligence that hasn't been made public. On the unlikely possibility that Iran would stupidly respond with more murder, a few well aimed military actions would have made a more certain end to the whole thing.I had Leftist friends quaking in their boots, and all I could say was Chill Out, you are hearing too much alarmist Leftist fake news that wants nothing but to try to make Trump look bad even when he's doing the best possible thing for the country.Thank God for Erica Kasraie's rational view of the situation. (See Message 4323 and the one following.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "process" in the House had nothing to do with any precedent whatsoever. They violated every principle of fair trials (not to mention shredding the Constitutional standards for impeachment). The Clinton impeachment was a model of fairness and this was nothing like that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So through all your searching "through all the irrelevant leftist stuff" you somehow never came across the fact that Twitter is mostly blocked in Iran. Incredible. Why do you even try?There is a large expatriate Iranian community, a significant part of which opposes the current regime. It dates all the way back to the Shah and all the people who had to flee when the ayatollahs took over. Hate for America within Iran traces all the way back to the 1950's coup d'tat supported by the US and UK that installed the Shah.Are you seriously trying to argue that there is significant support for the US within Iran? Seriously? Look, practically everything Trump says is a lie. Since Fox Opinion (as opposed to Fox News) swallows almost everything Trump says, most of what Fox opinion makers say is lies, too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...aims-his-first-three-years. If Trump is telling you that there is a significant faction within Iran that loves America, it's a lie.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor fix.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

I'm sorry you believe all that. Please listen to Erica Kasraie's videos in Message 4323 and following. You may be so hardened in your acceptance of the Ldeftist point of view you'll just go on attacking me and calling Trump a liar even after you hear her. I hope not but by now I know how the wind blows at EvC.AbE: She said a "majority" of the Iranian people are happy with what Trump did, BUT if you are right and the majority are against us, it makes no difference to the rightness of his taking out Solameini. It was the right thing to do, saying We will not tolerate the senseless ideologically driven murder of Americans, and if you continue you'll find out just how strong and precisely directed our military responses can be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And a very suspicious choice of timing, given that there was no imminent threat.

The impeachment was an investigation, not a trial. Trial standards do not apply. Especially confronting accusers and participating in the investigation are not required. That said, Trump could have had his lawyers participate. He chose not to.THy did it all as specified and allowed by the Constitution. Note that none of you RWNJs have ever claimed how the procedure was unconstitutional.And they did it by the procedures established by Republicans, no matter how many times you deny it.But you don't want reality.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

How did she determine that?The world is a better place without Solemeini. The timing was suspicious, and the act was probably illegal. As mentioned so many times before.

They followed the rules created by the House under the Republican Majority and only utter fools think the process in the house was a trial. You really need to learn the very basics and many, many, many people have pointed out to you that the trial happens in the Senate. What happened in the House is only the initial gathering of evidence to create an initial indictment.Honestly Faith, learn the basics.

Simple fairness and Constitutional rights and freedoms apply in ANY American proceding. They were honored in the Clinton impeachment, but completely suppressed in this one. It's all a political witch hunt, based on totalitarian fascist ways of operating, utterly contrary to our American standards. Very late in the "procedings" and only under the permission or denial determined by the partisan leaders. Totally Star Chamber, totally kangaroo court.Wake up. We've been witnessing a Congressional farce of unprecedented proportions, unconstitutional and in violation of every American principle of fairness. The "articles of impeachment" are a complete joke. Clinton was impeached on actual criminal charges, of which there were eleven determined by the investigation. Neither of these ridiculous charges against Trump violates any known legal standard, it's all a gigantic hoax.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How did she determine that? How do YOU determine anything at all about Iranians? How do YOU have the gall to decide that Trump acted at the wrong time. Who do you think you are?

Confronting ones accusers and legal representation are specifically NOT required by the Constitution except for criminal trials.

quote:

---

In all criminal prosecutions , the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Nonetheless, Trump was offered to participate with legal representation.He chose not to.And the impeachment was conducted by the Republican'rules. I note you are ignoring that.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

From news and videos and my Iranian neighbor. But your source is what I'm questioning.How did she determine her conclusion? Did she ask a majority of Iranians? Did she survey a random sample of Iranians? Or what?Seems to me she's got an unfounded opinion. And you have no argument against that. I'm a citizen of the US. Are you saying Trump is an unquestinable God-emperor? I think he's our employee.Suleimani was evil for years. There was no imminent threat. The assassination diverted attention from Trump's impeachment.Do the math.

Why should I care if they were "Republican" rules? But whatever rules there were the whole thing was a sham that denied the defendant any normal rights and freedoms, any normal due process, anything remotely based on our American principles. Your quote about what is required in criminal prosecutions is a good description of exactly what was denied Trump. And sorry, the belated and rigged invitation to send his lawyers is laughable. Sorry.

Reality Faith.The reality is that what happened in the House is not a trial.Our Constitution says that what happened in the House is not a trial.The US us a Nation under Laws.The House must obey the laws that the House establishes for their behavior.The Republicans, Trump's current party, decided what rules the House should follow.The Democrats followed those rules.Basics Faith, basics and reality show that once again you are spouting nonsense.