Congress & the Courts -  Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment (918 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-11 1:41 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (71 of 86) 
 118146.71 in reply to 118146.69 

Your goals are simple. To con people into not acting against Trump, and removing their motivations. To this end you mis-state the rules by which our country conducts an impeachment, and attempt to make all impeachments look like evil poltical exercises, no matter how evil the President. 

Then you repeat the Republican Mantra-

No proof of guilt- no reason to investigate! Investigation of a standing President is illegal and wrong. There is nothing wrong with obstructon of justice, because one cannot judge a standing president. They have a constitutionally granted right to obstruct any investigation they wish as part of the executive powers.

You add in the provision that even if impeachment is done, it will invariably be political and unjust, because all political motivations must be unjust. You apply the right wing standard that power is the only justification anyone needs, and anyone that opposes a Power you back cannot be justified, and are traitors to the country. It's insane, and the insanity is spreading.

I'm done fighting you point by point, because you keep on repeating the same lies as if they were truths- seeking to convince those who aren't intelligent enough to see past your constant stream of propaganda.

I'm done.

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-11 2:54 PM 
To: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member Icon  (72 of 86) 
 118146.72 in reply to 118146.71 

Good because you do not know of which you speak.

All I see from you are parroted left wing talking points.

All you do is say I am this and that and a right wing talking T-RUMP follower that wants him elected to be god.

This shows you have not paid attention to what I have written or even given it fair evaluation.

Sorry I will not hold your skirt and follow you around but I have an independently thinking mind. I am willing to look at alternative points of view. But I do it without bias and blinders.

You should try it. I doubt it would change your mind but you may get the idea that maybe others do have a valid point worth considering instead of just blowing it off because it does not toe your line.

  • Edited October 11, 2019 3:00 pm  by  Black_Beard
 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-11 3:51 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (73 of 86) 
 118146.73 in reply to 118146.72 

This shows you have not paid attention to what I have written or even given it fair evaluation.

 

When you keep on lying, and asserting it is the truth, the only evaluation I can give is that you are lying and probably have bad motives.

 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-11 4:22 PM 
To: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member Icon  (74 of 86) 
 118146.74 in reply to 118146.73 

But I am not lying. You just do not approve of what I say, you cannot refute it, so you just call it lying. 

 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-11 4:38 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (75 of 86) 
 118146.75 in reply to 118146.74 

Yes- you speak untruths. Prove them if you think you can. YOu can't. Bring in legal proof- and not briefs by Trump lawyers, either.

 

 
From: Katana (ferdaig)Oct-11 6:01 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (76 of 86) 
 118146.76 in reply to 118146.70 

Black_Beard said...

No you made an infantile little scenario change

Dude, reasonable doubt is about what the jury can be shown to be possible.  I just showed you how an eyewitness can be wrong about an identification.  That was your hypothetical and I didn't change it.  I just entered a previously unconsidered variable into the mix. 

Black_Beard said...

Juries are the one's that determine the reasonability of the evidence presented to them. Not whether or not they have had experience with the given scenario. It is up to them to listen, evaluate, and discuss the scenarios presented to make the fairest decision they can. 

You don't think those twelve people bring their experience into the jury room with them?  How naive are you? 

 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-12 11:23 PM 
To: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member Icon  (77 of 86) 
 118146.77 in reply to 118146.75 

One cannot prove a negative action.

You are making claims of positive criminal actions by T-RUMP. It is up to you to provide the definitive proof. I have yet to see it.

And I would not touch T-RUMP's lawyer's "briefs" with a thousand foot pole.   ;-)

 

 

 
From: Marypickford DelphiPlus Member IconOct-12 11:26 PM 
To: Black_Beard  (78 of 86) 
 118146.78 in reply to 118146.77 

Yet you're quoting them. So clearly- you need to clear your mind and stop puppeting his peoples talking points.

 

 
From: Black_BeardOct-12 11:40 PM 
To: Katana (ferdaig)  (79 of 86) 
 118146.79 in reply to 118146.76 

Reasonable doubt is about making the jury believe that what is being shown as the truth creates doubts by this or that. 

"That was your hypothetical and I didn't change it.  I just entered a previously unconsidered variable into the mix. "

Really,. "... I didn't change it.  I just entered a previously unconsidered variable into the mix."? Is English not one of your accomplishments? When you "entered a previously unconsidered variable into the mix" YOU CHANGED THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO!!!!!

I can do that too and present another witness who knows which of the two guys did it. We could do this all day. It does not disprove what I asserted. It is just a child game of "But what if.... ?" I do not care to play it.

You left the definition of experience open for my interpretation. If you care to expound on what experience they bring that would be relevant to the case for which they were randomly chosen and then screened we can proceed with that branch of the discussion.

?

 

 
From: Katana (ferdaig)Oct-13 11:27 AM 
To: Black_Beard  (80 of 86) 
 118146.80 in reply to 118146.79 

Black_Beard said...

Is English not one of your accomplishments? When you "entered a previously unconsidered variable into the mix" YOU CHANGED THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO!!!!!

No, I didn't.  Your hypothetical was unchanged.  The witness remained the same, the defendant remained the same.  I simply inserted reasonable doubt.  I could have used something other than a twin brother to achieve that same result, but the twin brother variable is the one most commonly used in law school for that purpose.  Regardless, eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate.  In Dallas County alone, 19 defendants who were convicted using eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA testing.  

Black_Beard said...

It is just a child game of "But what if.... ?" I do not care to play it.

Then you should not have begun it by presenting a hypothetical situation.  

Black_Beard said...

You left the definition of experience open for my interpretation.

You think that the term experience needs to be specially defined?  Even I wouldn't go that far; I think it speaks for itself.  

Black_Beard said...

If you care to expound on what experience they bring that would be relevant to the case for which they were randomly chosen and then screened we can proceed with that branch of the discussion.

You want to do a symposium on voir dire?    

  • Edited October 13, 2019 11:37 am  by  Katana (ferdaig)
 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 ... 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-86
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.