Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
66 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,025 Year: 5,137/6,534 Month: 557/794 Week: 48/135 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When did Republicans learn to hate Democrats more than Russia?
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 68 (867670)
11-30-2019 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
11-30-2019 2:39 PM


Re: Quick, Sherman, to the Wayback Machine!
But there aren't any such,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 11-30-2019 2:39 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 17 of 68 (867685)
12-01-2019 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
12-01-2019 11:22 AM


Don't bother unless you have facts.

Which you never do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-01-2019 11:22 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 12-02-2019 12:10 PM JonF has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 68 (867733)
12-02-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
12-02-2019 11:47 AM


The Mueller report documented numerous cases of Russian interference.

BUT NO INVOLVEMENT BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

And they documented many instances of involvement by the Trump campaign. Just the table of contents takes almost three pages to list those instances. Describing those instances takes 102 pages.

You START with "questionable actions" looking for evidence of actual wrongdoing that can be criminally charged. THEY FOUND NOTHING TO CHARGE HIM WITH, WHICH IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM MEANS HE WAS FOUND "NOT GUILTY." EXONERATED. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE?

They found insufficient evidence to charge them. Which in our legal system means they are presumed innocent but in the real world everybody knows they are guilty, It especially DOES NOT mean anyone was found "not guilty".

IF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAD BEEN FOUND THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED IT AS STARR LISTED CLINTON'S FELONIES, AS A CRIME HE COULD BE CHARGED WI6TH

The report did list his crtimes and pointed out that that the Congress is the place he should answer for them. Nancy Pelosi decided not to do so not because of any issues with the legal case but because public support for impeachment wasn't high enough for her.

are facts...

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE?

We insist on facts rather than right-wing nutjob hallucinations.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-02-2019 11:47 AM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 33 of 68 (867871)
12-04-2019 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
12-04-2019 12:30 PM


Re: Weasel words, not justice
It is a complete contradiction of American legal principles

No it isn't.

Unless, of course, you can name a real legal principle and specify exactly how it was contradicted.

you have "insufficient evidence ...to charge" ANYTHING, that means you've found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

No it doesn't. Repeating unsupported claims is not an argument, but it's obviously all you have.

That is how our legal system works. We don't parse the evidence between "some" and "enough," if you have insufficient evidence that is as good as having none in the eyes of the law

Where is that found in law or legal precedent? If you can't answer you have no argument.

And the idea that you had SOME evidence that prevents you from clearing the defendant is a massive corruption of our legal system, something apparently made up only for Trump.

There is no evidence that prevented indicting Trump. There is an administrative opinion that has no force in law but bound Mueller as an employee of the Justice Department. That administrative decision was made in 1973 in response to Nixon's transgressions and had nothing to do with Trump.

There is NO evidence, NONE, it's all a fantasy they intend to push through anyway. .

The many hours of public and private testimony under oath are evidence. The publically known actions of the principals are evidence. The public statements of the principals are evidence.

None of which you can address, so denying it exists is all you can do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 12:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 1:51 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 68 (867877)
12-04-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
12-04-2019 1:45 PM


The Ukrainians DID interfere in the election for Hillary, it's not propaganda.

Some individuals did, with little effect.

Russia interefered also.

To an extent so great that the Ukrainian's attempts are not even in the same ballpark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 1:45 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 37 of 68 (867879)
12-04-2019 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
12-04-2019 1:51 PM


Re: Weasel words, not justice
Unbelievable how you deny the obvious and demand evidence for the obvious, for historical fact. Unbelievable that we've sunk this low.

Translation:you have no support for your fantasy.

Oh "testimony" under oath" indeed. Sure, tons of hearsay two and three times removed, and evidence that actually supports the defense though it is denied.

Not Sondland's testimony. And the other witnesses together told a story that is consistent and fits the facts we know.

Trump won't let any others testify. He knows what they would say.

And the public statements by and actions of the principals. Especially Mulvaney and Trump.

But I would love to see you support "evidence that actually supports the defense though it is denied" with citations and explanations.

You won't even try.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 2:57 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 41 of 68 (867890)
12-04-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-04-2019 2:57 PM


Re: Weasel words, not justice
Sondland clearly said Trump denied wanting a quid pro quo in so many words. So much for his evidence for impeachment.

Yes, Trump said that. Most guilty people say they are innocent. Sondland said :

“Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

The rest is all hearsay. No matter how "consistent" it's all hearsay.

Which is allowed in this sort of proceeding.

And then there is the unidentified "whistleblower" whose identity we all know although they are protecting it despite the fact that it violates the principle that a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him.

No, it doesn't. As I wrote in Message 3507, the right to confront accusers does not apply in non-criminal matters:

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.

  • impeachment is not a criminal matter.
  • What's happening is not a prosecution, it's an investigation.
  • The whistleblower is not one of the witnesses against Trump. Trump’s culpability has been solidly established by people with more direct and complete knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 2:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 6:07 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 68 (867946)
12-05-2019 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
12-04-2019 6:07 PM


Re: Weasel words, not justice
Logical deductions are not worse than hearsay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 12-04-2019 6:07 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2019 10:27 AM JonF has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 58 of 68 (867948)
12-05-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
12-05-2019 5:59 AM


Unfortunately I don't know the true story in order to answer you but I do know that Obama gave them NO aid whatever.

Wrong as usual.

Fact-checking Trump's claim that Obama gave Ukraine 'pillows and sheets'

quote:
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.

...

While it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 12-05-2019 5:59 AM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 67 of 68 (868008)
12-06-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
12-05-2019 10:57 PM


Right-wingers have said many times that Obama gave nothing to Ukraine, in the sense that nothing was authorized.

I haven't heard of anyone saying he withheld aid that had been authorized. I bet you made that part up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-05-2019 10:57 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022