McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[Cecilie1200]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

Are you kidding me right now?! No Democrat President would investigate a Republican candidate? What fucking rock have you been living under for the last three years, that you missed the Obama investigation of the Trump campaign?

Now, as to reality . . . call us if you ever figure out how to connect to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether it's our Electoral System, the US Senate, Elections or the Supreme Court, if they don't get the results they want, they declare it illegitimate.

Face it Zorro you and your ilk have brought our great country to its knees You've shat on our constitution and like pigs you love getting dirty

No. We have defended the Constituion against the House's attempt to place themselves above the Law.

A trial without witnesses Why get to the real truth ?

then why did the left reject up to 16 of them?

my answer is they didn't want the real truth. i'm sure yours is "they would have lied" or some bullshit like this.

My eyes have really been opened since 2016

I had no idea that half the country did not understand how we elected Presidents in this country.
For weeks, on another site, one semi Intelligent member fought for the idea that a President had to be
Dually elected - as in the dual wins of the Popular vote and the EC or they weren't really President.
No matter how many times I stated that it was "duly" - she could not get it.

Now they don't know how trials are done - or what the word "additional" means.

As in, the vote was not to add ADDITIONAL witnesses.

I feel for you, hon. Talking to leftists is a lot like talking to my dog. They both cock their head and stare blankly, unable to comprehend.

Difference is, my dog is actually cute when he does it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What now libtards. The vote is done no more witnesses. Take that and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your losers and will continue to be losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry longo It's not over till I say it's over The liar trumps tax returns bs will be in SC soon and a vote before election day is coming Lets find out just how big a crook your king is

Right, like tax returns would make a difference to a voter.

Plus the tax returns are none of your business. Eddie asshole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eddie has some fantasy that he - or, more accurately, his political masters - are going to magically find some egregious tax crime that the Internal Revenue Service never noticed.

They're going about this backwards. You're supposed to have evidence of a crime before you're allowed to dig into someone's private papers. These guys insist on digging into a person's private papers trying to find a crime that they don't even know exists.

That's not how America does things.

They picked a verdict - Guilty! GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!! - in 2016, and they've spent three years looking for a crime to fit that verdict.

 

[colfax_m]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

you keep going back to CIRCUMSTANTIAL but have yet to provide ONE SINGLE COURT CASE where this was used to find someone guilty.

you ever get tired of lying and being a douche for your side?

I never claimed to know a specific court case. I've claimed that circumstantial evidence is used to prove intent. Trey Gowdy said as much, he's a prosecutor. I think it make sense. People don't generally announce their corrupt intent. That wouldn't make sense, yet proving intent is indeed important to a great many cases.

 

[Billiejeens]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Can a president have more than one motive for taking an action?

Sure. How much corrupt motive is okay? Like, as long as most of his motive isn’t corrupt, is that good enough?

How much ASSumption are we supposed to accept? Because you have yet to prove that his motive was corrupt. You're just ASSuming that because it was Joe Biden who was mentioned, that MUST mean it was because Joe was running for President. And since I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about a Democrat President calling for corruption investigations for a Republican running for office, you'd be falling all over yourself telling us about his pure, high-minded motivations, I'm less than willing to work off of your ASSumptions.

That’s the thing. No Democratic President is going to be calling for an investigation into Republicans running for office. No former Republican President would do so either. Presidents just don’t do that.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Now, as to Trump’s behavior. The circumstantial evidence points to his motive being corrupt. Why else would have he failed to get the DoJ involved and instead deciding to take lead and push his private lawyer who was acting solely in his private interests to do it instead?

Are you kidding me right now?! No Democrat President would investigate a Republican candidate? What fucking rock have you been living under for the last three years, that you missed the Obama investigation of the Trump campaign?

Now, as to reality . . . call us if you ever figure out how to connect to it.

Yeah -
That Maddow guy hasn't told them about any of that yet - so it's simply a tree that fell in a part of the forest that they weren't standing in.
Simply no idea what has been going on.

 

[colfax_m]

You guys say that about every Democrat. Years and years of these accusations and nothing to show for it. Do you think y’all have any credibility left?

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

Trump had an investigation into his racist practices in leasing apartments. He settled but the report is very damning. Also the Central Park 5 was really bad. There’s evidence if you want to find it.

That said, I don’t think he’s like a David Duke racist or anything. He’s pretty deplorable for a lot of reasons but that’s not chief among them for me.

Every Major Landlord in NYC was investigated for Not wanting to rent to Colored People during that time frame.
It was an early Phase of the Social Justice nonsense that we see today.

The Central Park 5 is nothing - nothing.

Every major landlord was acting racist then.

 

[colfax_m]

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

 

[Billiejeens]

Who is "you guys"? I've checked my pockets, and there are no mice in any of them. There's just me here.

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

Trump had an investigation into his racist practices in leasing apartments. He settled but the report is very damning. Also the Central Park 5 was really bad. There’s evidence if you want to find it.

That said, I don’t think he’s like a David Duke racist or anything. He’s pretty deplorable for a lot of reasons but that’s not chief among them for me.

Every Major Landlord in NYC was investigated for Not wanting to rent to Colored People during that time frame.
It was an early Phase of the Social Justice nonsense that we see today.

The Central Park 5 is nothing - nothing.

Every major landlord was acting racist then.

I would hope so.

 

[colfax_m]

Republicans, right wing media, Trump, his supporters. Never ending claims of proof of corruption among Democrats, never any substance.

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

Trump had an investigation into his racist practices in leasing apartments. He settled but the report is very damning. Also the Central Park 5 was really bad. There’s evidence if you want to find it.

That said, I don’t think he’s like a David Duke racist or anything. He’s pretty deplorable for a lot of reasons but that’s not chief among them for me.

Every Major Landlord in NYC was investigated for Not wanting to rent to Colored People during that time frame.
It was an early Phase of the Social Justice nonsense that we see today.

The Central Park 5 is nothing - nothing.

Every major landlord was acting racist then.

I would hope so.

Why would you hope for such a thing?

 

[iceberg]

leftists, (extreme anyway) and the media - always saying trump is racist and his supporters are "deplorables"

never seen you bitch at the lack of evidence there. hence, you are NEVER out to be fair, just push your crap around with a wicker-stick and pretend it's better crap.

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

 

[colfax_m]

CNN, MSNBC said 'racist' more than 4,100 times from July 14-21

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

 

[justoffal]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.

Bolton is trigger happy....

Jo

 

[iceberg]

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and how many times did colfax_m provide proof of any one of these 4100 opportunities?

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

 

[colfax_m]

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

 

[colfax_m]

I spend a lot of time putting together a well sourced post just for you to ignore. You haven’t given me reason to attempt to reply since you’re demonstrating that this isn’t a serious conversation. Am I wrong?

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

It’s also perfectly logical. Do you think people just declare their corrupt intent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

 

[iceberg]

well to be fair, you are on ignore anyway cause you just spout bullshit 24x7.

i only see your shit when i hit "show ignored conversations" and whoop, there you are running around saying the same shit. and to be more than fair, i've asked you half a dozen times to do this and you never did. if by chance you posted ANYTHING well thought out and with facts, you're right. i likely missed it.

now its my fault you can't put together a well sourced post?

that's some funny shit right there.

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

 

[colfax_m]

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

 

[iceberg]

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

it can be proven in court.

why didn't the left do it vs. call people who simply "heard" or gave their "guess" on what trump did / was doing?

why didn't we call witnesses for trump to say he was doing something else? this was NOT what he was doing? you're not interested in being fair nor equal justice, you're pissed at trump and don't care how badly you come across to show it.