Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 11: Just Biden His Time

[ShanDog]

Mod Notice

The level of vitriol and frankly toxic culture in this thread is getting out of hand. As such, the thread will be monitored actively for posters who drag down the quality of posting for all others, and they will have their access to the thread removed.

Further, reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) will no longer be allowed. Much like other tropes of that nature, it serves as a conversational barrier and fall-back point for people to simply sling mud. That's unacceptable.

Thanks.

 

[FireKrakouer]

yes, they are all hacks, Trump is much smarter than them and is the only one that can be trusted.

Not only all hacks, but it's safe to say most of the "signatures" are fraudulent, as literally anyone on earth who claims to have worked for the DOJ can add their "signature" to the statement.

I wish I was kidding, but it's true. Here you go, help them get up to 2000!

DOJ Alumni Statement - February 2020

You can

docs.google.com

#fakenews

 

[FireKrakouer]

Serious question, whose criticism of Trump would you listen to and accept?

It seems that anyone who goes against Trump, regardless of their political affiliation or prior ties to Donald, becomes a never-Trumper, tool of the left, or establishment hack.

I accepted Mattis's criticisms. I don't accept a thousand E-signatures procured by some creepy activist organisation.

 

[bourbons]

Is this a reference to the whole "over one THOUSAND establishment hacks have signed a statement concluding that orange man bad"? Sorry m8, we've seen this movie before, nearly a year ago

Op-Ed: President Trump argues he is above the law. A thousand prosecutors say he’s wrong

As of Wednesday, more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors had signed a statement explaining that, in their professional judgment and based on the facts described in special counsel Robert S.

www.latimes.com

Yes mate, absolutely every individual who has ever offered an argumentative word about poor old Donnie can safely considered to be a deep state plant or never Trumper.. sorry, also now 'establishment hack'. Do they email you out a terminology list with your weekly talking points?

Not sure what you think the article proves by the way? It's a fairly well accepted take at this point? Or have you dropped all pretence of rationality and are happy to accept POTUS is 'above the law', what way is the wind blowing this week lol

 

[bourbons]

Wasn't there something similar in regards to impeach Kavanaugh the rapist and the Hitler like crimes he committed.

More than 1000 former prosecutors from both sides of the aisle signed a statement re: Kavanaugh?

Can't remember that.

 

[Les Malone]

Serious question, whose criticism of Trump would you listen to and accept?

It seems that anyone who goes against Trump, regardless of their political affiliation or prior ties to Donald, becomes a never-Trumper, tool of the left, or establishment hack.

Not much, the left has created a rod for their own back from the years of hysterical carry on.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

unmasked and unhinged

 

[Royces Hart]

Not much, the left has created a rod for their own back from the years of hysterical carry on.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

unmasked and unhinged

So if someone from the right criticises Trump, that is the fault of the left?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Yes mate, absolutely every individual who has ever offered an argumentative word about poor old Donnie can safely considered to be a deep state plant or never Trumper.. sorry, also now 'establishment hack'. Do they email you out a terminology list with your weekly talking points?

Not sure what you think the article proves by the way? It's a fairly well accepted take at this point? Or have you dropped all pretence of rationality and are happy to accept POTUS is 'above the law', what way is the wind blowing this week lol

Do you accept that gathering online signatures via Google docs is not an infallible method to prove support for a given concept? Remember the recent climate change petition that had to resort to gathering signatures from academics like Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore to pump their numbers up
At what point did society abandon skepticism over what they see online?

 

[bourbons]

So if someone from the right criticises Trump, that is the fault of the left?

You have to admit, its a brilliant framework they've set up in their minds

Utterly impenetrable lol

 

[Deaneus!]

Our side is where all the Pedo's & sexual predators are. Absolute top quality posting.

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

www.snopes.com

you must be a fan of Dennis Hastert then

 

[bourbons]

Do you accept that gathering online signatures via Google docs is not an infallible method to prove support for a given concept? Remember the recent climate change petition that had to resort to gathering signatures from academics like Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore to pump their numbers up
At what point did society abandon skepticism over what they see online?

View attachment 824206

I do, if the idea is to gauge the support from a restricted set (former employees) but no effort is being made to ensure that is the case.

If you've got any info to indicate those running it are doing no vetting/matching of the names coming through, by all means post it.

 

[Royces Hart]

I accepted Mattis's criticisms. I don't accept a thousand E-signatures procured by some creepy activist organisation.

Your initial dismissal was not based on the process to gather the signatures, you attacked their character.

 

[GuruJane]

So why did Stone’s lawyer not challenge her position on the jury at least on the basis of having run for Congress as a Democrat? Maybe they should have done a google search?

Turley amplifies that aspec at the link. wirth reading in full:

" Except for a jury pool composed entirely of House impeachment managers, Hart would appear to be a standout for a peremptory challenge by the defense team over bias. That is why the most surprising aspect of this story is not the review of her public statements but the review of her examination before trial. The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not....

While Hart’s answers on the jury questionnaire remain sealed, Judge Jackson noted, “You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media, including about political things?” Hart does not volunteer that she did far more than “pay attention to news and social media” and was, in fact, an anti-Trump protester and social media critic.

Jackson seemed unaware of anything more than Hart’s following the news and asked if anything that Hart saw would affect her views. Hart again did not mention her protesting or public commentary and said she could not think of anything that would cause bias — “nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch, sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background, CNN. So, I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.”

She never mentioned that she specifically discussed Stone’s arrest and the objections to his treatment during that arrest as well as denouncing all of the associates of Trump as a virtual criminal enterprise.

Stone’s counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart’s actual political activism and commentary.

That lack of knowledge is not surprising since multiple questions on the jury questionnaire allowed her to reveal her past protests and postings. For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had "written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?" Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

Juror 1261 in Roger Stone’s case: Was justice undone?

There is serious question as to whether the conviction itself should be reevaluated.

thehill.com

As you say, leaves open why defence did not google Hart. I bet the prosecutors did!

 

[romeohwho]

I accepted Mattis's criticisms. I don't accept a thousand E-signatures procured by some creepy activist organisation.

Still, chances are extremely high that even a ‘creepy activist organisation’ speaks the truth way more than the Donnie ever has. Am I right or am I right crackers!
Kind of weird how many of trumpy‘s inner circle end up getting charged with criminal offences too isn’t it. Hmm.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yep yep prosecutors, 2 at least from Muellers team of 'special prosecutors' and registered Democrats.

You really are pathetic.

You actually expect that he should be "prosecuted" by his own cronies?

 

[GuruJane]

So why did Stone’s lawyer not challenge her position on the jury at least on the basis of having run for Congress as a Democrat? Maybe they should have done a google search?

of course, the defence had an idiot loser for a client causing them much professional embarrassment , might have been happy to see him go under asap.

 

[Les Malone]

You really are pathetic.

You actually expect that he should be "prosecuted" by his own cronies?

Whats even more pathetic is your post.

He should be prosecuted by non partisan prosecutors, is that to hard to ask for.

 

[trawlerman]

Whats even more pathetic is your post.

He should be prosecuted by non partisan prosecutors, is that to hard to ask for.

He's not going to get prosecuted by anyone, so you needn't worry about it.
I know, because I could have told you as soon as he became elected and some people were out to impeach him that any impeaching would fail.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Whats even more pathetic is your post.

He should be prosecuted by non partisan prosecutors, is that to hard to ask for.

Ahh yes, and where do you think you'll find them?

Everyone has a political allegiance.

 

[Les Malone]

Ahh yes, and where do you think you'll find them?

Everyone has a political allegiance.

Actually plenty of people don't.

Whats more at least 2 of those prosecutors were registered Democrats and served on Muellers investigation of Trump, knowing that is was based on a pack of lies.

 

[NSWCROW]

So if someone from the right criticises Trump, that is the fault of the left?

Les was obviously stuck up his own arse between 2008 and 2016 when the right rewrote the ****ing book on political tantrums

 

[Les Malone]

Emerald Robinson


@EmeraldRobinson

What a coincidence: Judge Amy Bergman Jackson was assigned the Peter Strozk trial! And the Roger Stone trial! And the Paul Manafort trial! Does the US District Court for DC only have one judge?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Actually plenty of people don't.

Whats more at least 2 of those prosecutors were registered Democrats and served on Muellers investigation of Trump, knowing that is was based on a pack of lies.

Surely you aren't that naive to think that at level there is no political allegiance?

Or maybe you are.

 

[bourbons]

Actually plenty of people don't.

Whats more at least 2 of those prosecutors were registered Democrats and served on Muellers investigation of Trump, knowing that is was based on a pack of lies.

And the other 2? Easily led types? Just go out in sympathy did they?

 

[Les Malone]

Surely you aren't that naive to think that at level there is no political allegiance?

Or maybe you are.

Normally elections are decided through swing voters, you know the ones who have no real political allegiance.

 

[Satan]

Emerald Robinson
@EmeraldRobinson

What a coincidence: Judge Amy Bergman Jackson was assigned the Peter Strozk trial! And the Roger Stone trial! And the Paul Manafort trial! Does the US District Court for DC only have one judge?

Has Strzok been charged?