• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

90 Minutes of "Insurrection"

ElChupacabra said:
You are aware the sole article here is "incitement of insurrection", yes?
Click to expand...
Yes. And the only charge of high Crime or Misdemeanor in that sole article is "inciting violence against the Government of the United States" Words matter. This is a piss poor, ill thought out impeachment conducted with zero investigation and two pieces of dubious evidence.

If the Senate doesn't dismiss it outright, for example for lack of jurisdiction, Trump's attorneys will eviscerate this charge.
 
pocket aces said:
just another thread that proves that Trumper opinions are worthless, and that they are antiAmerican losers.
Click to expand...
I know! Such a hateful bunch of losers. Perhaps now that he's no longer President, their hate for him will dissipate. But I'm not holding out hope
 
Rawley said:
If the Senate doesn't dismiss it outright, for example for lack of jurisdiction, Trump's attorneys will eviscerate this charge.
Click to expand...

Lack of jurisdiction? What an insane misuse of the word. They exactly have jurisdiction; When you were a child who did something wrong did you tell your mother she did not have jurisdiction? Its not clear yet if he'll find any attorneys. The evidence isn't 'dubious'. They were there for the riot and trump's actions are public and recorded.
 
Problems arising with meat as well as fish. We still have far too much gammon though.

www.reuters.com

British meat industry warns of border chaos as delays halt exports

The British meat industry warned on Monday of looming border chaos as post-Brexit customs checks between Britain and the European Union (EU) halt some cross-border meat flows even with volumes sharply reduced.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
But fish won't be forgotten!




Being Brexit/Lockdown Britain, they were all fined £200 for making "an unnecessary journey"
 
Lutherf said:
...For those on the left, this wasn't the "Trump fueled insurrection" you want the nation to believe it was. For those on the right, it wasn't "Standing up for the principles of liberty"...
Click to expand...

FBI; A protester attempted to send a stolen computer from the Capital to Russia...
 
SoCal said:
FBI; A protester attempted to send a stolen computer from the Capital to Russia...
Click to expand...
I read the affidavit. The reports about stealing the laptop and trying to sell it to Russia come from an ex boyfriend or girlfriend. The affidavit DOES NOT mention the loss of any computer. I'm not saying that it didn't happen but at this point it's just one more story where the headline says one thing and the facts say something substantially different.
 
Lutherf said:
I read the affidavit. The reports about stealing the laptop and trying to sell it to Russia come from an ex boyfriend or girlfriend. The affidavit DOES NOT mention the loss of any computer. I'm not saying that it didn't happen but at this point it's just one more story where the headline says one thing and the facts say something substantially different.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard any details, the only that that source was the FBI. You're right though, time will tell. You're also right about the value of affidavits verses facts, even when they claim election fraud...
 
SoCal said:
I haven't heard any details, the only that that source was the FBI. You're right though, time will tell. You're also right about the value of affidavits verses facts, even when they claim election fraud...
Click to expand...
And how do we determine if the claims in an affidavit are true or not?
 
What will ya'll gripe about after Wednesday?
 
Lutherf said:
And how do we determine if the claims in an affidavit are true or not?
Click to expand...

In one case it was determined by 50+ conservative judges and the SCOTUS who laughed it out of court and in the other case, if the FBI finds enough evidence (unlike the first example) she'll be tried as what? A traitor?
 
SoCal said:
In one case it was determined by 50+ conservative judges and the SCOTUS who laughed it out of court and in the other case, if the FBI finds enough evidence (unlike the first example) she'll be tried as what? A traitor? And of course, if investigators and FBI come up with no evidence, finding the accusations to be false and unjustified, she won't be taken to court and tried...
(I always do my editing after I hit the, "Post reply" :()
Click to expand...
 
Craig234 said:
Irony of the day award.
Click to expand...
You didn't even bother to read the links on jurisdiction did you? Too many big words? Sorry, I couldn't find the sock puppet theatre version.
 
Rawley said:
You didn't even bother to read the links on jurisdiction did you? Too many big words? Sorry, I couldn't find the sock puppet theatre version.
Click to expand...

You get a choice most don't get. You can apologize for your behavior, or you can no longer be read. Your links' whole point appears to be those who question whether the Senate can impeach try someone after they leave office, despite historical precedent that they have done so.
 
Craig234 said:
You get a choice most don't get. You can apologize for your behavior, or you can no longer be read. Your links' whole point appears to be those who question whether the Senate can impeach try someone after they leave office, despite historical precedent that they have done so.
Click to expand...
LOL "my behavior?" You start off by hurling ad hominum at me then start whining about "my behavior" when I point out your childishness? Fine, put me on iggie or grow up and debate liker a civil. rational poster.

Jurisdiction will be argued and it's got better than a 50/50 chance of resulting in a dismissal of the case. The only "precedent" you'll find is people that have resigned to avoid punishment. That's not the case here. The President's terms is over in two days, before a trial could start. He'll be a private citizen. Would the Senate have jurisdiction if a Dem House impeached President Washington for owning slaves? How about a Repub House that impeached Obama for spying on Trump? The Senate have jurisdiction?
 
Rawley said:
Yes. And the only charge of high Crime or Misdemeanor in that sole article is "inciting violence against the Government of the United States" Words matter. This is a piss poor, ill thought out impeachment conducted with zero investigation and two pieces of dubious evidence.

If the Senate doesn't dismiss it outright, for example for lack of jurisdiction, Trump's attorneys will eviscerate this charge.
Click to expand...
No, he is charged with inciting insurrection which includes the inciting the riot at the US Capitol and the interference heard on the call with Raffensperger. I don't think there's anything dubious about the call with Raffensperger which is the most damning out of the two. The incendiary rhetoric is more of a gray area because it's subject to interpretation and leaves more room to challenge the actual meaning and intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom