2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: rhayder on March 28, 2022, 05:10:15 PM
-
Trump 'likely' committed crime trying to stay in power, judge says in records dispute
In a remarkable 44-page ruling, a federal judge found it was "more likely than not" that former President Donald Trump violated the law and "corruptly attempted to obstruct" Congress in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
"It's enormously significant," said Jonathan Shaub, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. "This is a thorough judicial analysis that, I think, it's difficult to sort of just brush aside, and it will give the committee's statements that there have been crimes some credibility."
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu)
-
cool story, bro
Trump 'likely' committed crime trying to stay in power, judge says in records dispute
In a remarkable 44-page ruling, a federal judge found it was "more likely than not" that former President Donald Trump violated the law and "corruptly attempted to obstruct" Congress in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
"It's enormously significant," said Jonathan Shaub, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. "This is a thorough judicial analysis that, I think, it's difficult to sort of just brush aside, and it will give the committee's statements that there have been crimes some credibility."
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu)
-
Rent free 2 years later.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Rent free 2 years later.
(https://i.imgur.com/TVrljM7.gif)
-
CIA media plants fry up just as crispy as normal folks, you know.
None of you are resistant to radioactive fallout.
Do they not accept the laws of thermodynamics work over there at Langley?
Maybe it's time to get those priorities straight.
-
...
Do they not accept the laws of thermodynamics work over there at Langley?
...
(https://i.imgur.com/Mv8x9rM.png)
-
Trump 'likely' committed crime trying to stay in power, judge says in records dispute
In a remarkable 44-page ruling, a federal judge found it was "more likely than not" that former President Donald Trump violated the law and "corruptly attempted to obstruct" Congress in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
"It's enormously significant," said Jonathan Shaub, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. "This is a thorough judicial analysis that, I think, it's difficult to sort of just brush aside, and it will give the committee's statements that there have been crimes some credibility."
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu)
-
Don't you think that everyone that breaks the law should be prosecuted? Is the Democratic party now the party that stands for law and order?
cool story, bro
-
Don't you think that everyone that breaks the law should be prosecuted? Is the Democratic party now the party that stands for law and order?
Dont u think apples shall have a orange shelf life?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Don't you think that everyone that breaks the law should be prosecuted? Is the Democratic party now the party that stands for law and order?
(https://i.imgur.com/DfykKTW.jpg)
-
Don't you think that everyone that breaks the law should be prosecuted? Is the Democratic party now the party that stands for law and order?
I'll just leave this here ...
(https://i.imgur.com/pdf52Ii.jpg?1)
-
Trump 'likely' committed crime trying to stay in power, judge says in records dispute
In a remarkable 44-page ruling, a federal judge found it was "more likely than not" that former President Donald Trump violated the law and "corruptly attempted to obstruct" Congress in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
"It's enormously significant," said Jonathan Shaub, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. "This is a thorough judicial analysis that, I think, it's difficult to sort of just brush aside, and it will give the committee's statements that there have been crimes some credibility."
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089253473/trump-likely-committed-crime-trying-to-stay-in-power-judge-says-in-records-dispu)
-
fjb
-
I am not opposed to an investigation. Go for it. Investigate like Benghazi! Just do the same for both sides. Insider trading for example.. I am totally okay with clearing out the house and the senate and sending all to jail that committed crimes related to insider trading.
"Investigate like benghazi". Hahhahahahha
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
cool story, bro
I am not opposed to an investigation. Go for it. Investigate like Benghazi! Just do the same for both sides. Insider trading for example.. I am totally okay with clearing out the house and the senate and sending all to jail that committed crimes related to insider trading.
-
It wouldn't surprise me one bit but I will wait for more evidence before coming to a conclusion
-
It wouldn't surprise me one bit but I will wait for more evidence before coming to a conclusion
People like OP have been waiting since 2016 because they were told by the media to. And when every single time there was nothing, they blindly believed the next dake news idea and so on and so on. Criticial thinking skills that dont exist are why they target these types of individuals.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Don't you think that everyone that breaks the law should be prosecuted? Is the Democratic party now the party that stands for law and order?
Breaking the law in whose opinion? Yours? Demoncraps? Libertards? Your assumptions are like fart gas. They stink and have no substance….. ::)
-
People like OP have been waiting since 2016 because they were told by the media to. And when every single time there was nothing, they blindly believed the next dake news idea and so on and so on. Criticial thinking skills that dont exist are why they target these types of individuals.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sad to say I see loads of people on both sides who lack these critical thinking skills. People who believe every claim against Trump and people who disbelieve every claim against him. I have literally hear people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo (as if anyone with half a brain would say so). When people dig their trenches it becomes harder for them to see the facts from the propaganda.
It is two sides of the same coin, difference is that on this forum there are more people on one side and very few on the other so people here can outpost him and make him seem like the ridiculous side.
-
Sad to say I see loads of people on both sides who lack these critical thinking skills. People who believe every claim against Trump and people who disbelieve every claim against him. I have literally hear people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo (as if anyone with half a brain would say so). When people dig their trenches it becomes harder for them to see the facts from the propaganda.
It is two sides of the same coin, difference is that on this forum there are more people on one side and very few on the other so people here can outpost him and make him seem like the ridiculous side.
Please share 1 huge claim that was true that the fake news pushed. U know, the stories they pushed for days to years are the huge ones. Not a 2 minute story and never mention again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Please share 1 huge claim that was true that the fake news pushed. U know, the stories they pushed for days to years are the huge ones. Not a 2 minute story and never mention again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Why?
I am not defending the media here.
-
Why?
I am not defending the media here.
Because u said u see loads not believing. When something is not true, there will be loads of people who dont believe it.
Ur statement implies that the fake news is right and trump supporters refuse to believe them despite the evidence presented (lack of critical thinking by tumpr supporters).
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Sad to say I see loads of people on both sides who lack these critical thinking skills. People who believe every claim against Trump and people who disbelieve every claim against him. I have literally hear people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo (as if anyone with half a brain would say so). When people dig their trenches it becomes harder for them to see the facts from the propaganda.
It is two sides of the same coin, difference is that on this forum there are more people on one side and very few on the other so people here can outpost him and make him seem like the ridiculous side.
You seem to want to group people into this or that category based on nothing more than what you "have literally hear [sic] people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo." So, that means everyone who agrees there was no quid pro quo followed that same reasoning? Why can't the people who believe the RIGHT facts do so for the WRONG reasons?
For example, if I tell you Joe Biden's son is guilty of money laundering and political corruption which involves his father, you're going to ask for evidence. The evidence was covered up during the election, but plenty of information on the laptop was made public to SUSPECT these are the facts, even if they aren't proven legally.
I'm allowed to believe the information that's in the public domain unless and until new facts prove me wrong. To simply say I'm wrong because I believe the reports from a Hunter Biden business partner, a computer repairman, and the pieces of the backup leaked to the press by Guiliani, and didn't wait for hard proof is not an argument. It's a disagreement over the voracity and accuracy of the facts reported.
By the same token, if you did not believe the laptop was genuine because you trust the press when they ALL said it had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and 50 some odd former intelligence agents also dismissed it as Russian disinformation, are you not also free to believe those reports over the ones I believe?
It sounds like you think you can divine the truth from publicly available information no matter who it's about, and that's just not true. The media and the DNC are one. Nothing the Democrats want buried will ever become a hot news item unless the story somehow blows up -- as in a whistleblower with receipts comes forward.
These are not "two sides of the same coin." That implies they are each following a political bias rather than their own reasoning. In my world, the press has lied so many times the last 50 years, I find it impossible to believe anything they report regarding politics unless there's live, unedited footage shown to prove it's true. If Trump said something, and there's no video, I'm leaning toward another "anonymous source" spreading false rumors -- again.
-
Because u said u see loads not believing. When something is not true, there will be loads of people who dont believe it.
Ur statement implies that the fake news is right and trump supporters refuse to believe them despite the evidence presented (lack of critical thinking by tumpr supporters).
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I am talking about when there is real news and Trump supporters don't believe it. Wouldn't make sense to point out when Trump supporters don't believe fake news.
-
You seem to want to group people into this or that category based on nothing more than what you "have literally hear [sic] people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo." So, that means everyone who agrees there was no quid pro quo followed that same reasoning? Why can't the people who believe the RIGHT facts do so for the WRONG reasons?
For example, if I tell you Joe Biden's son is guilty of money laundering and political corruption which involves his father, you're going to ask for evidence. The evidence was covered up during the election, but plenty of information on the laptop was made public to SUSPECT these are the facts, even if they aren't proven legally.
I'm allowed to believe the information that's in the public domain unless and until new facts prove me wrong. To simply say I'm wrong because I believe the reports from a Hunter Biden business partner, a computer repairman, and the pieces of the backup leaked to the press by Guiliani, and didn't wait for hard proof is not an argument. It's a disagreement over the voracity and accuracy of the facts reported.
By the same token, if you did not believe the laptop was genuine because you trust the press when they ALL said it had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and 50 some odd former intelligence agents also dismissed it as Russian disinformation, are you not also free to believe those reports over the ones I believe?
It sounds like you think you can divine the truth from publicly available information no matter who it's about, and that's just not true. The media and the DNC are one. Nothing the Democrats want buried will ever become a hot news item unless the story somehow blows up -- as in a whistleblower with receipts comes forward.
These are not "two sides of the same coin." That implies they are each following a political bias rather than their own reasoning. In my world, the press has lied so many times the last 50 years, I find it impossible to believe anything they report regarding politics unless there's live, unedited footage shown to prove it's true. If Trump said something, and there's no video, I'm leaning toward another "anonymous source" spreading false rumors -- again.
No, I am not saying that anyone who believes there was no quid pro quo are following the same reasoning, I was pointing out that there were some people who argued there wasn't quid-pro-quo based on a laughably weak defense. One could make a better argument using other facts, using the specific one I mentioned is just silly and shows a lack of critical thinking skills as was mentioned.
We want to act like only democrats lack critical thinking skills, but we are full of such people too. We just don't call them out because they are on our own side.
-
No, I am not saying that anyone who believes there was no quid pro quo are following the same reasoning, I was pointing out that there were some people who argued there wasn't quid-pro-quo based on a laughably weak defense. One could make a better argument using other facts, using the specific one I mentioned is just silly and shows a lack of critical thinking skills as was mentioned.
We want to act like only democrats lack critical thinking skills, but we are full of such people too. We just don't call them out because they are on our own side.
Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?
-
I am talking about when there is real news and Trump supporters don't believe it. Wouldn't make sense to point out when Trump supporters don't believe fake news.
Whats real news? And who reports real news?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Whats real news? And who reports real news?
I'm guessing that mouse he carries around in his pocket.
:geekdanc: :popcorn:
-
Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?
Conservatives, republicans, etc.