Trump's legal defeat in Colorado may turn into political gold

[Danderman123]

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

There you go again.

You ask us to consider your opinion that two grand juries are wrong about Trump's role in the insurrection, but offer no proof.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Obviously, in the absence of supporting facts, your faith in Orange Jesus sustains you.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Danderman123

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

They were all Republicans.

 

Was Ivanka biased?

 

Selection!!

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Selection!!

Why were so many Republicans, including Trump staffers, willing to testify against Trump?

 

What you mean by "selection" is that people not currently on Trump's payroll tend to tell the truth about Trump. And, the truth hurts.

[ozimoron]

"On the other side, there are many people that are frustrated with that and ready to turn the page and get away from this toxic, divisive type of language," she continued. "That's why they're looking at other candidates, like Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. So he can bring it on and energize his base, but there are other Republicans out there that are looking for someone that is less chaotic and less toxic in their rhetoric and language."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-toxic-christmas-posts/

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/26/2023 at 12:54 PM, Danderman123 said:

You really don't believe that Trump incited the January 6 insurrection, and did nothing to stop it until Pence called the National Guard?

 

This really makes you look bad, we have another Sergeant Schultz here "I see nothing, I know nothing".

 

You don't have the common sense to acknowledge widely known facts?

 

Geez, no wonder you worship Orange Jesus.

You almost managed a post without a deflection or an insult, but blew it in the last sentence. No wonder I won't put you on ignore- posting gold!

 

If Trump could be proven to have incited an "insurrection", I have no doubt they would not have bothered with the other 90 or so court cases as that would be enough to put him out of contention.

As it is, they haven't been able to do so.

 

Next.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/26/2023 at 12:57 PM, Danderman123 said:

Apparently, his MO is to deny basic facts, under the assumption that contesting every detail of Trump's crimes somehow casts doubt on Trump's guilt.

 

It's a standard tactic of Trolls for Trump.

Apparently, your MO is to post defections, under the assumption that inventing Trump crimes somehow confirms Trump's guilt, for something, anything.

 

It's a standard tactic of Trolls against Trump.

Edited December 27, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Why were so many Republicans, including Trump staffers, willing to testify against Trump?

 

What you mean by "selection" is that people not currently on Trump's payroll tend to tell the truth about Trump. And, the truth hurts.

If you actually knew anything about that, you'd know that some people don't like him, even Trump staffers, and people that don't like him are willing to testify against him. It doesn't mean that they have the "smoking gun" though, or he'd have been out long ago.

He has always been unpopular with some Republicans eg Liz Cheney, and the Bush's

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You ask us to consider your opinion that two grand juries are wrong about Trump's role in the insurrection, but offer no proof.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Obviously, in the absence of supporting facts, your faith in Orange Jesus sustains you.

From what I know about Grand juries is that they are only given one side of the argument and only vote to proceed with a court case or not. IMO Grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence, otherwise no need for a court case.

The use of juvenile nicknames is what happens in school. Are you still a pupil?

[Danderman123]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You almost managed a post without a deflection or an insult, but blew it in the last sentence. No wonder I won't put you on ignore- posting gold!

 

If Trump could be proven to have incited an "insurrection", I have no doubt they would not have bothered with the other 90 or so court cases as that would be enough to put him out of contention.

As it is, they haven't been able to do so.

 

Next.

"They" are in the process of proving that Trump incited the riot via trial by jury. Trump's lawyers have been desperate to stall the trial. Why is that?

 

Of course, judges in Colorado have already ruled that Trump caused an insurrection.

 

But, you disagree.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Two grand juries have concluded that there is probable cause to indict.

Two grand juries have concluded that there is probable cause to proceed to trial. They have not concluded that he is guilty. That is up to the court case to decide.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

"They" are in the process of proving that Trump incited the riot via trial by jury. Trump's lawyers have been desperate to stall the trial. Why is that?

 

Of course, judges in Colorado have already ruled that Trump caused an insurrection.

 

But, you disagree.

Judges are not juries. The dispute is that they meddled in politics and exceeded their role. Did you miss that?

If from now on judges in various states strike Biden off ballots for being senile, will that be acceptable to you?

Edited December 27, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From what I know about Grand juries is that they are only given one side of the argument and only vote to proceed with a court case or not. IMO Grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence, otherwise no need for a court case.

The use of juvenile nicknames is what happens in school. Are you still a pupil?

Grand juries have the job of determining probable cause. Which means that it is not unreasonable to presume guilt.

 

What is unreasonable is declaring Trump's innocence, without providing any exonerating evidence.

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Judges are not juries. The dispute is that they meddled in politics and exceeded their role. Did you miss that?

If from now on judges in various states strike Biden off ballots for being senile, will that be acceptable to you?

The Constitution provides for removal of insurrectionist candidates.

 

There is no provision for removal of senile candidates. 

 

You are wrong - again.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Grand juries have the job of determining probable cause. Which means that it is not unreasonable to presume guilt.

 

What is unreasonable is declaring Trump's innocence, without providing any exonerating evidence.

Prove I have declared Trump innocent!

What is unreasonable is declaring other posters said something without providing any exonerating evidence.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Constitution provides for removal of insurrectionist candidates.

 

There is no provision for removal of senile candidates. 

 

You are wrong - again.

Trump has not been found guilty of that, so IMO the judges exceeded their authority.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump has not been found guilty of that, so IMO the judges exceeded their authority.

You are probably correct. Trump should have been convicted by a jury prior to disqualification.

 

But my original point is that Trump did bad stuff on January 6, and has been dinged by a grand jury and 2 sets of judges.

 

On the other hand, FOX News says he is innocent.

 

Who do you believe?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Prove I have declared Trump innocent!

What is unreasonable is declaring other posters said something without providing any exonerating evidence.

So you believe that Trump is guilty?

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Why were so many Republicans, including Trump staffers, willing to testify against Trump?

 

What you mean by "selection" is that people not currently on Trump's payroll tend to tell the truth about Trump. And, the truth hurts.

 

No, I mean selection of the committee itself and other witnesses who might have had a different point of view that were ignored. This was a hearing without any defense allowed.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump was disqualified because of his role in the insurrection. You deny that Trump was involved in the insurrection.

 

Acvording to you, refuting your claims = changing the subject.

 

Trump *did* incite the insurrection as part of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Two court cases are pending about this. Two grand juries have concluded that there is probable cause to indict.

 

Pending, probable, piffle.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

No, I mean selection of the committee itself and other witnesses who might have had a different point of view that were ignored. This was a hearing without any defense allowed.

Who are these multiple potential witnesses who have been ignored?

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, Dan O said:

Go back and read what you wrote. You clear wrote how every ignored and forgot his plea for only a peaceful protest.  Yes your poor use of language and avoiding including all the facts is constant

 

You post this and accuse me of poor language skills? 

[Danderman123]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

No, I mean selection of the committee itself and other witnesses who might have had a different point of view that were ignored. This was a hearing without any defense allowed.

Have you ever heard of any witnesses who could exonerate Trump from his actions on January 6? Apart from Rudy Giuliani, that is. And maybe the Pillow Guy.

 

There's a reason the current House is not holding hearings on January 6 to exonerate Trump.

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, candide said:

Who are these multiple potential witnesses who have been ignored?

 

You misquoted me - I didn't say "multiple" I said other witnesses who might have had a different point of view. In any case no defense was allowed at this sham of a hearing. But I guess you agree that the committee was rather slanted. 

 

Any further questions, send a postcard to Nancy Pelosi, who could have been one of the most interesting witnesses herself.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by nauseus

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Have you ever heard of any witnesses who could exonerate Trump from his actions on January 6? Apart from Rudy Giuliani, that is. And maybe the Pillow Guy.

 

There's a reason the current House is not holding hearings on January 6 to exonerate Trump.

 

The reason the current House is not holding hearings on January 6 any more is because the Democrats just wasted 18 months already. Plus the Republicans have their own investigations to run. 

[candide]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You misquoted me - I didn't say "multiple" I said other witnesses who might have had a different point of view. In any case no defense was allowed at this sham of a hearing. But I guess you agree that the committee was rather slanted. 

 

Any further questions, send a postcard to Nancy Pelosi, who could have been on of the most interesting witnesses herself.

 

 

I wrote multiple because there have been multiple witnesses and other evidence against Trump.

So who could becthese few witnesses?

 

So Nancy may have exonerated Trump? That's interesting? How?

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

I wrote multiple because there have been multiple witnesses and other evidence against Trump.

So who could becthese few witnesses?

 

So Nancy may have exonerated Trump? That's interesting? How?

 

Well please don't include words in a way that implies that i said them.

 

Nancy might have drawn new light onto the whole J6 issue by answering a few tough questions honestly. 

[candide]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Well please don't include words in a way that implies that i said them.

 

Nancy might have drawn new light onto the whole J6 issue by answering a few tough questions honestly. 

Still mysterious... which tough questions should have been asked? How could it exonerate Trump?

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Still mysterious... which tough questions should have been asked? How could it exonerate Trump?

 

I am getting bored but I'll give you three that Pelosi should know about:

 

1) Exactly what intelligence of any security threat to the Capitol was received prior to J6 and, if there was, who was responsible for sharing this information, was it shared and with whom?

 

2) Were any requests for additional security for the Capitol were made prior to J6 by anyone, and if so, who, and what action was taken by any party?

 

3) Why did you ask for Chief Sund's resignation? 

 

I don't expect that Pelosi will ever formally testify and answers to these questions might only partly exonerate Trump. But they could help fill a few gaps, which were ignored by the J6 circus act. They certainly might explain how the Capitol was so easily breeched.

 

 

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Well please don't include words in a way that implies that i said them.

 

Nancy might have drawn new light onto the whole J6 issue by answering a few tough questions honestly. 

If you really think that Nanci Pelosi had anything to do with J6, you are either deluded or just parroting FOX News talking points.

 

The Speaker of the House has zero responsibility for Capitol security, any more than the Senate Majority Leader (Mitch McConnell at the time).

 

The fact that you don't question McConnell's role indicates that you are just engaged in partisan hackery. 

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I am getting bored but I'll give you three that Pelosi should know about:

 

1) Exactly what intelligence of any security threat to the Capitol was received prior to J6 and, if there was, who was responsible for sharing this information, was it shared and with whom?

 

2) Were any requests for additional security for the Capitol were made prior to J6 by anyone, and if so, who, and what action was taken by any party?

 

3) Why did you ask for Chief Sund's resignation? 

 

I don't expect that Pelosi will ever formally testify and answers to these questions might only partly exonerate Trump. But they could help fill a few gaps, which were ignored by the J6 circus act. They certainly might explain how the Capitol was so easily breeched.

 

 

Neither Pelosi not McConnell had any responsibility for Capitol Security.

 

And Pelosi asked for Sund's resignation because of his massive strategic and tactical failures. Simple common sense.