Just John wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 8:44 pm
rtb72 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 7:45 pm
Just John wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:27 pm
[
*]McConnel stopped a third party. the House had agreed.
Depends on who 3rd party was. If House agreed...I'm suspect...sorry.
*I think we had adequately explained that "hearsay" is really corroborated testimony by first-person witnesses. (You still may not agree).
I don't.
*Hillary gave testimony to the Benghazi investigation for 13 straight hours. It was televised. Would be the same for Trump
And who believed her other than the same people that was going to believe what they believed anyway
*Orchestrated for attack? does that mean an organized investigation?
Not organized when you leave out mitigating factors. That's called biased juris-prudence.
*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have". I think the problem is it doesn't seem like you, and especially others. really care if there is more. It's "let's move on", "No one cares". Hard to have it both ways, unless the goal is to avoid an investigation, which of course it is for many.
I don't care if Trump is investigated. If he committed a crime...fine. What I do care about is if he...or any American is investigated in the way presently being utilized. There is no due diligence to this circus. In a true criminal proceeding (which this is not), the defendant has say so in their jury pool. Assuming the House committee is acting as such, there was no such thing afforded Trump. Further lending to my assertion he will not be convicted of anything. The more I think about it....I'm curious if the Dems really want a true criminal trial. At that point, Trump would be entitled to everything from the left as well. FULL DISCOVERY! That might actually be interesting. Another little pesky matter in a criminal case is that loathsome "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing. Yeah....that is not going to happen.
A conviction is certainly no slam dunk. And you make fair points regarding these hearing being much different from a trial. Don't disagree at all. And I can understand a hesitancy of an administration not wanting to go after a previous administration of another party. That's never been done in the US. But sadly, Trump has put the country in a tough position.
I agreed with much of Trump's policies, to the degree he had many. And I definitely thought he was better than HRC. But I said at the time in 2016 one of my major concerns was his authoritative tendencies and would not vote for him. (Or HRC). I wish I had been wrong.
This is fair. I think we can all agree...well maybe not all, but most reasonable folks can agree; words and demeanor matter, and here we are. Trump didn't draw the ire and wrath from so many because of his policies, he drew it because of his personality. It wasn't Presidential. Of course, there's a lot of elected officials who have defiled the people's offices because of their behavior, Trump notwithstanding. At this point, I think my biggest concern is Trump will continue to pursue political office and hurt some quality candidates that might otherwise have been favored. The left however, needs to recognize that their continued obsession with all things Trump is not going to help them. The country is tired....very tired....of not only Trump, but of the obsession with him as well. For both the right and the left....I would suggest "Trump" is probably not a winning strategy nationally. J6, 2000 mules, whatever....it's only playing to the people already firmly fixed in a position, and will be organized based on the target of its appeal.