...so, if the evidence is there -- should we try DTrump?...

Chillicothe

Platinum Member
Feb 14, 2021
11,182
7,135
938
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."



-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
 
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:


"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."


-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO

Sure

and if the evidence is there, we should also try Hunter Biden.

and Hillary Clinton

and Bill Clinton

and Nancy Pelosi

and Adam Schiff



etc

etc
 
Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

whoop-de-fucking-doo-who-cares.gif


I worked for an asshole once that had 15 Masters Degrees in business on the wall behind his desk in his office, and which he reminded EVERYBODY of on a daily basis..........................HAD NO FUCKING CLUE HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS NOR HOW TO HANDLE EMPLOYEES!!!

Some of THE most heinously DUMBASSED MORONS have faked their way into high end positions!!

And just because some moron wrote an article or book, only means they think their OPINION is better than anyone elses!!!
 
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:


"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."


-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
If the evidence exists, should we try the Clintons, Bush II, Cheney, the Obamas?

Maybe Big Bird?

The selectiveness of your obsession is telling, and your proposition meaningless and hysterical at best.
 
Sure

and if the evidence is there, we should also try Hunter Biden.

and Hillary Clinton

and Bill Clinton

and Nancy Pelosi

and Adam Schiff



etc

etc

Soros and his crime syndicate family
Gates and his crime syndicate family
And all the Hellyweird "elite"
All Nazicrat governors
All the illegals they let in
All the Biden "voters"

ETC, ETC, ETC....
 
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

One's objective / subjective stance is what this sugars off to Chilli

Anecdotally opining along said lines, i believe we're being led by a rouge government bent on less representation of, and more control of it's constituency

Trump amounts to no more than a cameo player to me

JMHumble dissident O.....
~S~
 
There is a familiar pattern with Donald Trump - recognizing that he can at times be an asshole. It is the classic case of "the boy who cried, WOLF." They are constantly accusing him of bullshit crimes, and everyone knows it's a bullshit accusation, but the Media are only writing for their own tiny audience, so they think they are being taken seriously. If he ever actually committed a crime - it would be the first one - nobody outside the Leftist camp would believe it anyway. And that is half the country.

Russia collusion, constant lying, treason, insurrection, theft of documents...it never ends, and it's all bullshit. He is never put on trial because it is never actually crime, and half the country is WITH Trump in whatever he did that is the subject of the claims.
 
Trump's cult thinks he is above the law of man and God. There is no possible evidence that can compel them to the realization that they have been had.
 
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:


"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."


-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
There are simply no rules or standards for them at this point. They think they're fighting evil, so anything goes, and they'll forgive and ignore anything that advances that agenda.

This is a religious, paranoid rage that most of us will probably never fully understand. That's why we still don't know how to address it.
 
Trump's cult thinks he is above the law of man and God. There is no possible evidence that can compel them to the realization that they have been had.
and that's different that the Clinton cult, how?

25 years, and the nutcases claim he was impeached for a blowjob.

Hillary spent hours stating, "I don't know", "I don't remember", etc before a congressional panel, and THAT's the person they nominated to replace Obama.
 
and that's different that the Clinton cult, how?

25 years, and the nutcases claim he was impeached for a blowjob.

Hillary spent hours stating, "I don't know", "I don't remember", etc before a congressional panel, and THAT's the person they nominated to replace Obama.
You're not talking to a Clinton supporter. Maybe you can find one somewhere and ask them.
 
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:


"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."


-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
5q0qd2.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top