Will Trump win again???

Started by Planktonmd
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Matty44 said:
You can fancy legal talk to us small uneducated folks all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as you’ve mentioned numerous times, this isn’t a criminal trial. It’s a political trial and a trial in the eyes of the public. And everyone who sees a witness like Sondland say “oh yeah, I just presumed what Trump wanted” knows it is WAY different than him saying “Trump told me he wanted this.”

Legal talk yourself all you want, but you just sound like a partisan hack when you try to make it sound like Sondland’s presumptions mean anything substantial. Even shifty Schiff knows it was worthless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well it is a trial to see if the President committed high crimes. Saying shifty schiff, sleepy joe, AKA acting like a middle schooler when your 73 years old, really doesn't help the Trump's plea in persuading people they he do anything wrong.
 
radsisrad said:
They also blocked witnesses Republicans wanted to call, from what I understand.

It doesn't matter. Regardless of what happened, there's nothing wrong with Trump investigating potential corruption where there are signs of it, and in politics, there's always give-and-take ("quid pro quo", if you want to be like a lawyer and use Latin to make yourself sound more intelligent than you really are).

The entire premise of the impeachment hearings is a sham, and though it's funny when one observes the clownshow on TV, things become a lot darker on consideration of the dynamics at play. The same liars and *****ic politicians who brought us the Russia hoax, the hookers-peeing-on-Trump fantasy, the 25th Amendment scheme, and the supposed constitutional challenges to Trump's travel restrictions (which were proven to be hogwash, as Trump has every authority to enforce the bans) know that they can sell a massive pile a manure to Americans with the support of media that drum the propaganda into our ears day and night.
Click to expand...
Matty44 said:
You can fancy legal talk to us small uneducated folks all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as you’ve mentioned numerous times, this isn’t a criminal trial. It’s a political trial and a trial in the eyes of the public. And everyone who sees a witness like Sondland say “oh yeah, I just presumed what Trump wanted” knows it is WAY different than him saying “Trump told me he wanted this.”

Legal talk yourself all you want, but you just sound like a partisan hack when you try to make it sound like Sondland’s presumptions mean anything substantial. Even shifty Schiff knows it was worthless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're not a lawyer, so you can't understand anything, just follow Boola's lead and do whatever he says.

Someone acting under a presumption, made while discussing with other diplomats who made presumptions, despite a president clearly saying he wanted no Quid Pro Joe, yes, that's GUILT according to Boola!!

:laugh:😆
 
Dr.J.D said:
Well it is a trial to see if the President committed high crimes. Saying shifty schiff, sleepy joe, AKA acting like a middle schooler when your 73 years old, really doesn't help the Trump's plea in persuading people they he do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

He didn't do anything wrong, there's no evidence of anything, just presumption.

You're presuming guilt of someone who clearly told his diplomat that he explicitly didn't want a quid pro joe.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Dr.J.D said:
Well it is a trial to see if the President committed high crimes. Saying shifty schiff, sleepy joe, AKA acting like a middle schooler when your 73 years old, really doesn't help the Trump's plea in persuading people they he do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

It’s Trump’s style. Like it or not, he’s been doing it since the republican primaries in 2015. Was a Schiff ‘acting like a middle-schooler” when he ‘recreated’ Trumps phone call?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
You can fancy legal talk to us small uneducated folks all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as you’ve mentioned numerous times, this isn’t a criminal trial. It’s a political trial and a trial in the eyes of the public. And everyone who sees a witness like Sondland say “oh yeah, I just presumed what Trump wanted” knows it is WAY different than him saying “Trump told me he wanted this.”

Legal talk yourself all you want, but you just sound like a partisan hack when you try to make it seem like Sondland’s presumptions mean anything substantial. Even shifty Schiff knows it was worthless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Read thoroughly the National Review comments where their own editorial board and attorneys concede that the case for attempted bribery has been made. And Sondland et al, are not partisan but rather all appointed the said positions by Trump.

And that is not fancy legal talk, similar to a physician explaining a procedure is not fancy medial talk, but merely the fact around the matter. What you fail to acknowledge is that the most basic and fundamental precept to our system of justice -is the presumption of innocence. The key word being presumption, but you don’t seem to have a problem with that, but selective utilize the term presumption, and quite erroneously, in the pejorative when it’s used otherwise—which is just base ignorance. It’s something a 9th grader doing moot court would know—very telling.
 
Mikkel said:
You're not a lawyer, so you can't understand anything, just follow Boola's lead and do whatever he says.

Someone acting under a presumption, made while discussing with other diplomats who made presumptions, despite a president clearly saying he wanted no Quid Pro Joe, yes, that's GUILT according to Boola!!

:laugh:😆
Click to expand...
Lmao he literally said that after the friggin call!!!!!!
 
8E98EB7E-FD53-4840-9335-029C71CCB9B1.gif
 
Dr.J.D said:
Lmao he literally said that after the friggin call!!!!!!
Click to expand...
These folks are just not too bright. So, if it’s a topic or concept that they do not have knowledge or a previous background with or are just unread, these fairly basic concepts become fancy or too abstract for them to accept. To be clear, these are are complex legal theories but in fact straightforward legal axioms.

Moreover, ignoring the relevant timeline as to when the President said something, e.g. after he was given legal notice that the State Department IG was placing the matter under an official investigation, is not just patently duplicitous, moreover it’s just ignorant.
 
BoolaHI said:
Read thoroughly the National Review comments where their own editorial board and attorneys concede that the case for attempted bribery has been made. And Sondland et al, are not partisan but rather all appointed the said positions by Trump.

And that is not fancy legal talk, similar to a physician explaining a procedure is not fancy medial talk, but merely the fact around the matter. What you fail to acknowledge is that the most basic and fundamental precept to our system of justice -is the presumption of innocence. The key word being presumption, but you don’t seem to have a problem with that, but selective utilize the term presumption, and quite erroneously, in the pejorative when it’s used otherwise—which is just base ignorance. It’s something a 9th grader doing moot court would know—very telling.
Click to expand...

Yes, in this country we PRESUME innocence. The burden of PROOF is on the prosecution. You don’t overcome the presumption of innocence with presumptions of guilt. Good lord, you’re a real attorney yeah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
Yes, in this country we PRESUME innocence. The burden of PROOF is on the prosecution. You don’t overcome the presumption of innocence with presumptions of guilt. Good lord, you’re a real attorney yeah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about ? You brought up the whole matter of whether Sondland could offer a presumption of his thought on a matter and I clarified that in fact, a presumption (in a legal setting) that not only could he offer such a presumption , but that it would be for the defense to prove otherwise. That’s law 101, I never said it was a presumption of guilt, but just that it was incumbent on the other side to prove otherwise on just that one topic....you have a little trouble reading and anything that is a tad analytical, huh?

I’m telling you, you might want to enroll in the HS moot court I coach....
 
Anyone else notice none of these MAGA numbskulls has peep to say about the missing testimony under oath from Rudy, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, or Trump? They also have nothing to say about the hundreds or thousands of corresponding documents regarding Ukraine policy which the WH is holding up.

Deep down, they know all the documents are incriminating and everyone other than maybe Bolton would perjure himself in the first 30 seconds. Trump, especially, his lawyers wouldn’t even let him sit down with Mueller because his lying is so pathological.
 
vector2 said:
Anyone else notice none of these MAGA numbskulls has peep to say about the missing testimony under oath from Rudy, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, or Trump? They also have nothing to say about the hundreds or thousands of corresponding documents regarding Ukraine policy which the WH is holding up.

Deep down, they know all the documents are incriminating and everyone other than maybe Bolton would perjure himself in the first 30 seconds. Trump, especially, his lawyers wouldn’t even let him sit down with Mueller because his lying is so pathological.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, "we're from the government, you have nothing to worry about, especially if you didn't commit a crime".

Meanwhile the only "crime" his former national security advisor committed was talking to the FBI.
 
“
In the 2010 offseason, an anonymous player told NFL officials that the Saints had targeted Favre and Warner as part of a bounty program administered by Williams; the NFL's security department found the allegations credible enough to open an investigation. However, the players and team officials interviewed all denied that any bounty program existed, and the player who made the initial report subsequently recanted his allegations.[7][14]”

Watching football today made me think of this. Too bad for the saints that the commish didn’t appoint Nunes and the house GOP to investigate because I mean, shucks, they all said they didn’t do it .
 
Last edited:
Mikkel said:
Ah yes, "we're from the government, you have nothing to worry about, especially if you didn't commit a crime".
Click to expand...

So you’re saying Slick Willy shouldn’t have sat down with Starr and HRC shouldn’t have sat for 11 hrs of Benghazi testimony. Got it.

Do me a favor and tattoo your post I quoted on your forehead for when there’s a future dem scandal and a gop congress wants to investigate.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BoolaHI said:
What are you even talking about ? You brought up the whole matter of whether Sondland could offer a presumption of his thought on a matter and I clarified that in fact, a presumption (in a legal setting) that not only could he offer such a presumption , but that it would be for the defense to prove otherwise. That’s law 101, I never said it was a presumption of guilt, but just that it was incumbent on the other side to prove otherwise on just that one topic....you have a little trouble reading and anything that is a tad analytical, huh?

I’m telling you, you might want to enroll in the HS moot court I coach....
Click to expand...

So you’re saying that innocence has to be proven and not guilt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Imsugge
Matty44 said:
Yes, in this country we PRESUME innocence. The burden of PROOF is on the prosecution. You don’t overcome the presumption of innocence with presumptions of guilt. Good lord, you’re a real attorney yeah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I suggest you take a good portion of your afternoon
Matty44 said:
So you’re saying that innocence has to be proven and not guilt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Are you dense? Seriously, do you have problems with basic comprehension? Not sure how much more I can explain this rather simple matter: a person can offer a presumption without an offer of fact in many instances, the other side than has the responsibility to prove otherwise, this may or may not ultimately prove innocence.
 
BoolaHI said:
Imsugge

I suggest you take a good portion of your afternoon
Click to expand...

To do what? I’m watching football. Finish your sentences please.

BoolaHI said:
Are you dense? Seriously, do you have problems with basic comprehension? Not sure how much more I can explain this rather simple matter: a person can offer a presumption without an offer of fact in many instances, the other side than has the responsibility to prove otherwise, this may or may not ultimately prove innocence.
Click to expand...

So lemme get this straight, if I’m in court and have been accused of murder, and a cop testifies and says “oh yeah, I presumed he strangled that other dude with a lamp cord.” Then I, as the defendant, have the responsibility to prove his presumption false??? So the prosecution can bring multiple witnesses, who with no evidence, presume multiple things about then alleged crime, and it’s the defenses’ job to prove all the incorrect presumptions false? Seriously?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mikkel said:
They didn't learn their lesson after the Russian collusion hoax, and instead are doubling down on their insane rantings. We literally just finished two weeks of Schiff making his case, but with absolutely zero evidence of any crime committed.

It's really sad.
Click to expand...

Did you read the 448 page report?
 
Matty44 said:
To do what? I’m watching football. Finish your sentences please.



So lemme get this straight, if I’m in court and have been accused of murder, and a cop testifies and says “oh yeah, I presumed he strangled that other dude with a lamp cord.” Then I, as the defendant, have the responsibility to prove his presumption false??? So the prosecution can bring multiple witnesses, who with no evidence, presume multiple things about then alleged crime, and it’s the defenses’ job to prove all the incorrect presumptions false? Seriously?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
its not hearsay. There is evidence, and witnesses are saying what they think happened according to their dealings with the president and their witnessing of the call. Trump got caught with his pants down.
 
Dr.J.D said:
its not hearsay. There is evidence, and witnesses are saying what they think happened according to their dealings with the president and their witnessing of the call. Trump got caught with his pants down.
Click to expand...

Lol, do you even know what we are talking about? What my Boo and I are talking about is even less credible than hearsay, we’re talking about Sondland’s PRESUMPTIONS. At least have a clue what’s being discussed if you’re gonna chime in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dr.J.D said:
To be fair he has been a serial stutterer all his life.
Click to expand...

Joe - “I’m supported by the only black women ever elected to the US senate!”

Kamala - “uh, no.”

[emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
To do what? I’m watching football. Finish your sentences please.



So lemme get this straight, if I’m in court and have been accused of murder, and a cop testifies and says “oh yeah, I presumed he strangled that other dude with a lamp cord.” Then I, as the defendant, have the responsibility to prove his presumption false??? So the prosecution can bring multiple witnesses, who with no evidence, presume multiple things about then alleged crime, and it’s the defenses’ job to prove all the incorrect presumptions false? Seriously?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There is an entire body of law called evidence, and in fact, law students depending on the school take a semester or two, just on the topic. I suggest you read about rebuttable presumptions and their counter. In short, I can’t answer your silly example as it requires to review the totality of the entire circumstance and what may be inferred from the existence of a given set of facts and as well, that what might be conclusive absent contrary evidence.
 
Matty44 said:
Lol, do you even know what we are talking about? What my Boo and I are talking about is even less credible than hearsay, we’re talking about Sondland’s PRESUMPTIONS. At least have a clue what’s being discussed if you’re gonna chime in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
ur Boo? Dont forget Sondland isnt some leftist shill. He donated to the Trump campaign. And also you should note that Trump wont be impeached because Sondlands testimony alone. He made his own bed with the call.
 
Matty44 said:
Joe - “I’m supported by the only black women ever elected to the US senate!”

Kamala - “uh, no.”

[emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23][emoji28][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Only 2 have been. Ever.
 
BoolaHI said:
There is an entire body of law called evidence, and in fact, law students depending on the school take a semester or two, just on the topic. I suggest you read about rebuttable presumptions and their counter. In short, I can’t answer your silly example as it requires to review the totality of the entire circumstance and what may be inferred from the existence of a given set of facts and as well, that what might be conclusive absent contrary evidence.
Click to expand...

Ok. So as I said in the beginning, this is a trial of political nature and a public hearing of the evidence. We all know Trump isn’t gonna be removed from office so this basically comes down to the court of public opinion. And if you can even explain it to me, a well educated, high IQ individual, do you honestly think the general public is gonna think that someone making a presumption is proof enough of guilt? Not gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Dr.J.D said:
ur Boo? Dont forget Sondland isnt some leftist shill. He donated to the Trump campaign. And also you should note that Trump wont be impeached because Sondlands testimony alone. He made his own bed with the call.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he’s my Boo. Is that ok with you?

And Sondland was the only one that spoke with Trump directly. Multiple other witnesses hearsay testimony was based on Sondland. And his was presumption. The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
Yeah, he’s my Boo. Is that ok with you?

And Sondland was the only one that spoke with Trump directly. Multiple other witnesses hearsay testimony was based on Sondland. And his was presumption. The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
my Boo. hop off
 
Matty44 said:
Ok. So as I said in the beginning, this is a trial of political nature and a public hearing of the evidence. We all know Trump isn’t gonna be removed from office so this basically comes down to the court of public opinion. And if you can even explain it to me, a well educated, high IQ individual, do you honestly think the general public is gonna think that someone making a presumption is proof enough of guilt? Not gonna happen.

Dude you must have martial problems with your wife because you are certainly not an active or effective listener.

For the last time, so while a presumption can be offered without fact, it only applies specifically to the matter it was offered for—e.g. in this case his brief of a Quid pro quo.

Quilt or innocence is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances not just this one item.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 

I’m a black belt, she’s only a purple belt. No problems there.




And you’ve still made no point that’s gonna convince anyone that a presumption by Sondland is anything but meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
Yeah, he’s my Boo. Is that ok with you?

And Sondland was the only one that spoke with Trump directly. Multiple other witnesses hearsay testimony was based on Sondland. And his was presumption. The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
at the end of the day all this talk is just a waste of time, impeachment is along party lines, Trump will be impeached, and if this happens quickly then he will be acquitted by this senate. The toss up is whether this whole thing will benefit or hurt him in 2020.
 
Dr.J.D said:
at the end of the day all this talk is just a waste of time, impeachment is along party lines, Trump will be impeached, and if this happens quickly then he will be acquitted by this senate. The toss up is whether this whole thing will benefit or hurt him in 2020.
Click to expand...

Hey, we agree! [emoji3]

Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is not a criminal case. It's more akin to a civil case, where the burden of proof is simply "more likely than not", AKA whose story is more likely to be true. Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, wait... IQ.

It's also irrelevant what politicians say on social media, in committees, in the press etc. when contradicting what a witness said under oath. People lie all the time, especially to the public. There is a reason his lawyers don't want Trump to be deposed under oath, ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BoolaHI said:
Trump, always the patriot, defender of constitution and a brave voluntary solider—not.

www.politico.com

Esper forces out Navy secretary over disputed SEAL case

At issue was the fate of a sailor who had been accused of war crimes and whose rank President Trump recently restored.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...

Don’t worry, I’m sure Esper will find some corporate toadie buddy from Raytheon to fill the spot. Hell, maybe DeVos can get her brother from Blackwater to find someone and we can start privatizing the Navy sooner rather than later.
 
FFP said:
This is not a criminal case. It's more akin to a civil case, where the burden of proof is simply "more likely than not", AKA whose story is more likely to be true. Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, wait... IQ.
Click to expand...

It’s not hard to understand at all, and America apparently understands it. And they believe that Schiff’s narrative is more likely than not to be FALSE. From early November to now, independents have moved from +15% support for impeachment (49%-34%) to -7% support (39%-46%). That’s a HUGE swing for any political issue in such a short period of time, let alone one involving Trump. The public ain’t buying it. Period.

And with those kind of numbers, I won’t be shocked to see some house democrats who are up for re-election in districts Trump carried flip their vote to no on impeachment.


www.google.com

New Polling Suggests Democrats’ Impeachment Push Could Alienate Key Voters

Data exclusive to Vanity Fair shows impeachment could be a losing issue for Democrats hoping to recruit Independents in 2020. “Lots of people who don’t like Trump who are still prepared to vote for him,” says one political science expert.
www.google.com www.google.com



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
Yes, in this country we PRESUME innocence. The burden of PROOF is on the prosecution. You don’t overcome the presumption of innocence with presumptions of guilt. Good lord, you’re a real attorney yeah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well the beauty of this is that it isn’t an actual criminal trial.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Matty44 said:
It’s not hard to understand at all, and America apparently understands it. And they believe that Schiff’s narrative is more likely than not to be FALSE. From early November to now, independents have moved from +15% support for impeachment (49%-34%) to -7% support (39%-46%). That’s a HUGE swing for any political issue in such a short period of time, let alone one involving Trump. The public ain’t buying it. Period.

And with those kind of numbers, I won’t be shocked to see some house democrats who are up for re-election in districts Trump carried flip their vote to no on impeachment.


www.google.com

New Polling Suggests Democrats’ Impeachment Push Could Alienate Key Voters

Data exclusive to Vanity Fair shows impeachment could be a losing issue for Democrats hoping to recruit Independents in 2020. “Lots of people who don’t like Trump who are still prepared to vote for him,” says one political science expert.
www.google.com www.google.com



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What do polls have to do with facts?
 
Mikkel said:
I did, did you? There was no Russian collusion.
Click to expand...

No I didn’t read all the appendices. I got through about 75% of the rest of it.

The intelligence community and many Republicans seem to be in agreement that Russia interfered with our election.
The emails with trump jr setting up the meeting with the russian attorney who promised to reveal dirt on Clinton seems to show that their campaign worked with russians. Paul Manafort is in jail, Roger Stone is about to go to jail, Michael Flynn plead guilty. Etc.

Also, the conclusion as below.
But I guess you don’t believe anything in the report is true. So there’s really no way to have a constructive conversation with people who don’t believe what is presented as facts.

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Dr.J.D said:
at the end of the day all this talk is just a waste of time, impeachment is along party lines, Trump will be impeached, and if this happens quickly then he will be acquitted by this senate. The toss up is whether this whole thing will benefit or hurt him in 2020.
Click to expand...

Yep. The votes will be along party lines similar to the Clinton impeachment with the same outcome in the Senate.

But I do think it’s important for congress to do their job and investigate these matters. Democracy is important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.