Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

What to expect from Jim Biden's testimony before the House Oversight Committee...
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 21, 2024 8:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (18 comments) [135 views]


So it really is Russia, Russia, Russia that helps Trump get elected
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 5:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (4 comments) [39 views]


The Bobulinski Transcript: a lot of smoke but no fire.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 17, 2024 12:31 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (34 comments) [561 views]


Hunter Biden's prosecutors confused a picture of sawdust with cocaine
Law by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 10:10 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [52 views]


Will Donald Trump’s legal penalties and legal expenses impact campaign spending?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 10:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [32 views]


Presidential experts rank Biden 14th among presidents in survey, Trump comes in last
President by Curt_Anderson     February 18, 2024 6:57 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (13 comments) [189 views]


538's Nate Silver urges Biden: "Reassure voters or ‘stand down’"
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 20, 2024 7:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [26 views]


Nothing on the KC shootout at their Super Bowl parade?
Sports by Indy!     February 20, 2024 3:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [42 views]


GUTFELD! on the nearly $half Billion judgment against Trump
Law by HatetheSwamp     February 20, 2024 7:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [31 views]


James Comer Admits He Might Have to Throw in the Towel on Biden Impeachment Quest Because ‘The Math Keeps Getting Worse’
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 11:35 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [19 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Legal Goober #1 exposes Trump NY Fraud trial as fraud
By HatetheSwamp
October 2, 2023 11:50 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Dershowitz has said many times that he wants Trump to lose in 024...in, as po'd say, an EFFINfair election. Apparently, he's the only liberal Dem who wants that...



Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Legal Goober #1 exposes Trump NY Fraud trial as fraud":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on October 2, 2023 1:52 pm
    HtS,
    To a degree property values are subjective, but square footage is not. Trump told the bank that his own residence was 30,000 square feet. In reality, the apartment was about 11,000 square feet. It's been some time since I signed papers to get a loan, but I recall having to attest to the truthfulness of what I claimed I had as collateral.

    Do you think it's OK to lie on job resumes, rental applications, bank loans, et cetera? Among the victims are the honest, more worthy applicants.

    Dershowitz also suggested that other people lie when applying for loans. That's hardly an excuse.


  2. by oldedude on October 2, 2023 8:14 pm
    To a degree property values are subjective, but square footage is not. Trump told the bank that his own residence was 30,000 square feet. In reality, the apartment was about 11,000 square feet. It's been some time since I signed papers to get a loan, but I recall having to attest to the truthfulness of what I claimed I had as collateral.

    It's a business property. Therefore, is mainly suitable for business. I haven't seen it, but it would make sense the "business" side of an apartment would be larger than the living quarters. Especially if the "house" were on a closed country club where important meetings were held. The rules her are very vague by design. Each property is different. We are (legally) taking off a business tax exemption for a workshop. This building will house our freeze-drying operations under the FL farm legislation. It's quite legal. Obviously, trumpsters property isn't that, and there are exemptions of areas of the house and how they are used. The dining room for example may be a business expense because that's where you meet clients.

    Don't blame trumpster for this. He's using the IRS rules as congress passed them for their own shitty greed. Blame them. Blame nancy pelosi and boxer. Both of them have been accused of stock violations (federal crime). Many others on both sides are on the same boat.


  3. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 3:14 am

    Do you think it's OK to lie on job resumes, rental applications, bank loans, et cetera? Among the victims are the honest, more worthy applicants.

    Of course not.

    But, Curt, unless your TDS is terminal, you'll acknowledge that no one else in this whole wide world is in court over stuff like this.

    Letitia James campaigned for AG with the promise that she'd go after Trump...and, it's fallen to this.

    The Swamp sucks. HatetheSwamp!


  4. by Ponderer on October 3, 2023 6:43 am

    "But, Curt, unless your TDS is terminal, you'll acknowledge that no one else in this whole wide world is in court over stuff like this." -Hate

    Yeah, Curt. If court cases don't make the news, as probably ninety nine point some odd percent don't, then they simply didn't happen. If Hate isn't aware of something happening, then it didn't happen. All those court houses all mothballed, sitting there just waiting for some court case to come along and get them in the news.

    Those nine other RICO cases that Fani Willis tried...? Didn't happen. Hate never saw anything about them, so how could they have? In fact, none of the cases that any of Trump's judges tried in their entire careers ever happened either because Hate never even heard of any of them until now.


    I love how Hate luxuriates in his own ignorance like it's a hot tub at a Hawaiian resort.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 7:43 am

    po,

    I rely heavily on the insight of my three Legal Goobers on these matters. None of my opinions are original with me.

    Legal Goober #1 states a duh for people outside of the TDS world. Whatever happens in this case will certainly be overturned on appeal...but, only after the election and that's all the SwampDems want.

    The thing is, Trump's shouting that this is "election interference" and, for the moment, his message is resonating with moderates and independents. While, at the same time, Joe's stumbling up steps and asking God to, " Save the Queen...man!"

    Y'nes are about to achieve the virtual impossibility, i.e., turning Trump into a sympathetic figure.


  6. by Ponderer on October 3, 2023 7:51 am

    Bill, your defense of Trump is absolutely adorable. Your endearment to him is something that I am sure would make him smile. You're a dedicated foot soldier for him.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 7:53 am

    po,

    State, in 25 words or less, my DEFENSE of Trump. Baha bahahahahahahahahahaha baha ha.


  8. by Ponderer on October 3, 2023 10:26 am

    Oh don't worry about it, Bill. There's no reason to make a big deal out of your defense of Trump. We've gotten so used to it.

    Talk about projection... This thread itself is an obvious defense of him. Trying to make out this trial for his crime of fraud out to be fraud itself. What blithering idiocy. Just because you managed to find some old Legal Geezer who is willing to babble nonsense in front of cameras, you think that you've found proof of Trump's innocence.

    You are obviously so intent on proving Trump's innocence that you will entertain any manner of malarkey that you can find to support your defense while ignoring all the hard evidence against him. Defending Trump seems to have become a full time job for you.

    You think he is despicable. And yet you still defend him without fail.





  9. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 11:56 am

    po,

    State, in 25 words or less, my DEFENSE of Trump. Baha bahahahahahahahahahaha baha ha.

    Give it a shot.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha haha baha hahaha ha.


  10. by Ponderer on October 3, 2023 3:14 pm

    Oh forgive me for not following your orders, Mine Fuehrer!

    I will use however fuckingmany words as I want to use. You ain't the boss of me. I answered yourfucking question, asshole. You're gonna use that to obfuscate my being correct?

    I now demand that you explain to me, without using any nouns, verbs, or determiners, why thefuck I should have to obey your fuckingorders...


  11. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 3:33 pm

    Orders?

    To engage in meaningful dialog?


  12. by Ponderer on October 3, 2023 4:00 pm

    Oh my yes. Simply every meaningful dialogue begins with a 25-word limit.

    Please... don't let me hold you back from your Trump defense activities...


  13. by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2023 4:05 pm

    po,

    By all means, use 25 paragraphs. Heck, 250 paragraphs, if that'll help. I'd love to see the workings of what you call a mind to splain how I defend a guy that I despise.

    Please.

    Please, please, please, please, please!!!!!


  14. by Curt_Anderson on October 3, 2023 4:40 pm
    HtS,
    You defend Trump by never criticizing him. Your mantra "he's despicable" doesn't negate that. None of Trump's lies, falsehoods, misbehavior or nonsense elicits your rebuke.

    There, I believe that's 25 words or fewer.


  15. by oldedude on October 3, 2023 7:23 pm
    You're about as shallow as a table top. and you smell like a cow patty.
    View Video


  16. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 10:58 am

    Curt,

    Not criticizing ain't defending.


  17. by Curt_Anderson on October 4, 2023 11:10 am
    HtS,
    Yes, you are also enabling Trump, that's worse. You defend Trump with your tacit approval. Your silence about Trump's misdeeds and lies speaks volumes, especially in contrast to your nitpicking of President Biden.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 11:53 am

    Noop.

    What does pb tacitly approve of?


  19. by oldedude on October 4, 2023 11:59 am
    To me, this is the same thing you're doing for pedojoe, and pedojr.

    And I'm not getting in to it, as we'll just try to convince each other. My point is though, If one did wrong, the other did also. I'm looking at it from a legal perspective, and I don't like either one of them.

    I also believe that if you believe in tacit approval in trumpsters case, then you're far more guilty of supporting the slavery of human beings and the sex trade. People are dying because of your (and others on the site) tacit approval. You continually overlook that one piece that is a constant. I believe this one thing is so egregious that I refuse to allow you to give any tacit approval at all. And I will continue to do so.


  20. by Curt_Anderson on October 4, 2023 12:11 pm
    "What does pb tacitly approve of?" ---HtS referring to himself.

    Do you know what "tacit approval" means? The question that you need to answer is what has Trump said or done that you have ever expressed disapproval of?

    OD,
    I disapprove of every crime of which the GOP impeachment inquiry committee has provided evidence implicating Joe Biden. Likewise I disapprove of all the 91 crimes for which Trump has been implicated. I also disapprove of Trump's apparent fraud, rape and defamation for which he has been found liable.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 12:23 pm

    Do you know what "tacit approval" means? The question that you need to answer is what has Trump said or done that you have ever expressed disapproval of?

    Uh, just about everything?


  22. by Curt_Anderson on October 4, 2023 12:27 pm
    "about everything" ---HtS

    Show me (with a self-quote and link) one post where you expressed disapproval of anything that Trump said or did.


  23. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 12:33 pm

    Curt,

    You're so full of $#!t.

    Why pb thinks Trump is despicable

    selectsmart.com


  24. by Curt_Anderson on October 4, 2023 12:47 pm
    I must admit I hadn't remembered that post. I was on vacation then.

    Your "criticisms" are rather weak tea. For example you mildly rebuked Trump for a speech about Hillary--who you are quick to say was a thug and cheat (without evidence). Basically in all your complaints about Trump you expressed disapproval of his manners (and lack thereof).

    It's like saying, "the problem with Hitler is that he interrupts people too much".


  25. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 12:52 pm

    You commented on it.

    As I noted in the post, you can be rationally opposed to Trump. Y'nes think that derangement is necessary.


  26. by Ponderer on October 4, 2023 1:46 pm

    Yeah, Curt. Give Hate a break. He showed us enough bad things that he thinks about Trump to make any new crimes or horrors he didn't mention absolutely irrelevant. He doesn't have to have a problem with any of it.


  27. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 2:00 pm

    Such as...


  28. by oldedude on October 4, 2023 2:14 pm
    I disapprove of every crime of which the GOP impeachment inquiry committee has provided evidence implicating Joe Biden. Likewise I disapprove of all the 91 crimes for which Trump has been implicated. I also disapprove of Trump's apparent fraud, rape and defamation for which he has been found liable.

    You're really vague. Do you disapprove of the "acts"? or the charges? Two different things and I think for pedojoe, you disapprove of the charges, and trumpster you disapprove of the acts. You said absolutely nothing new that you haven't said for the past several years. It's apparent in your TDS.

    And as usual, nothing about your tacit support of slavery, bondage, and human sex trafficking.


  29. by islander on October 4, 2023 2:34 pm

    Just because you dislike someone or dislike many things about the person doesn’t mean you can’t defend that person. A lawyer can defend someone that he or she dislikes and/or knows or believes that the person is indeed guilty.

    In a discussion or debate arguing that someone should not be prosecuted or is not guilty of a crime IS also “defending that person.”

    Attacking and denigrating one political opponent and his supporters or making false and/or unverified claims about them IS defending the other opponent.

    Casting aspersions on and/or denigrating the prosecutor or judge and jury in a criminal case IS defending the person on trial.

    If Trump is accused, indicted, or is on trial for a crime, arguing that what Trump did is not a crime and/or claiming that no one is ever brought to trial for such actions IS defending Trump even if you believe (or don’t believe) what you are claiming is true.

    Example; calling the trial of Trump a fraud IS defending Trump.



  30. by Curt_Anderson on October 4, 2023 2:54 pm
    Islander said it very well above. HtS is defending Trump when he cheerleads for him. He defends Trump when he attacks institutions like the justice system and news media. He defends Trump when he breathless touts every poll that Trump leads.

    OD,
    I was being slightly facetious. The GOP impeachment inquiry committee has provided exactly zero proof of any criminal acts by President Biden. And certainly nothing while Biden has been president.

    I disapprove of any criminal acts that I witness. For example I disapprove of Trump's "perfect phone call" to Brad Raffensperger. I disapprove of the boxes classified documents that Trump had piled on stage and a bathroom. I disapprove of Trump's dereliction of duty to call off the rioters on January 6th. Anybody who was paying attention witnessed all that: we heard the phone calls and saw the photos. We all saw Trump's appalling lack of action for three hours on January Sixth after he spurred the rioters on.

    I disapprove of the misdeeds for which Trump has been found liable in courtrooms. I disapprove of the consequential lies that Trump has said publicly.


  31. by oldedude on October 4, 2023 5:18 pm
    In a discussion or debate arguing that someone should not be prosecuted or is not guilty of a crime IS also “defending that person.”
    So y'all are caught defending pedojoe. got it. And in three of the four of you gang rape.

    Attacking and denigrating one political opponent and his supporters or making false and/or unverified claims about them IS defending the other opponent.
    That is then true every time you, curt, jjpo malign us with some fictious, stupid, and outrageous "thought."

    Casting aspersions on and/or denigrating the prosecutor or judge and jury in a criminal case IS defending the person on trial.
    So those that said the attempted murder of a SCOTUS judge was "nothing," have done this.

    My thought is that you need to look at your own life and see what you are doing.
    I have also said this often. Given the same issue on the other side, I would side with the law. Of course, you'd have to actually be able to read law to do that. And to know how an actual case works. And actually know what happens in each procedure of a case.

    I take a look at the sheeple here. I can draw very clear identical traits between them and the die hard trumpsters. The same flagrant disregard of truth, disrespect for anyone that does not hold their views in their entirety. and many others.




  32. by Ponderer on October 4, 2023 7:24 pm

    "My thought is that you need to look at your own life and see what you are doing." -olde dude

























  33. by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2023 7:36 pm

    If Trump is accused, indicted, or is on trial for a crime, arguing that what Trump did is not a crime and/or claiming that no one is ever brought to trial for such actions IS defending Trump even if you believe (or don’t believe) what you are claiming is true.

    Bullfernerner.

    The protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights apply even to Trump.

    Period.

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, isle!


  34. by oldedude on October 4, 2023 8:21 pm
    Lead, I'm going into a little depth here. just for giggles. Yippie yay yea, Cow Pattie!

    If Trump is accused, indicted, or is on trial for a crime, arguing that what Trump did is not a crime and/or claiming that no one is ever brought to trial for such actions IS defending Trump even if you believe (or don’t believe) what you are claiming is true.

    There is? mmmmmm... new one to me. That's kinda the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should really go back to Middle School government class.

    The term “innocent until proven guilty” is something we can easily take for granted within the legal system and, more specifically, the criminal justice system. We are used to presumed innocence in a modern courtroom where the prosecution has to work to prove a defendant’s guilt.

    It is part of a broader range of legal clauses designed to protect us if we are falsely accused and uphold fundamental rights to minimize the occurrence of wrongful convictions.


    These are included in the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth Amendments.
    constitutionus.com


  35. by islander on October 5, 2023 4:17 am

    Hate and od have no idea what they are talking about when they start with their nonsense that it is somehow unconstitutional for us to point out that they have been defending Trump.

    I certainly don’t deny nor would I deny that in these discussions of course I have been defending President Biden. Why would I deny that?

    Why are they apparently ashamed of and in denial about their defense of Trump?

    They also seem to think that outside of a court of law, it is somehow a violation of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights for you or I to believe or argue that a suspect is guilty of a crime.

    This shows that they don’t understand what the assumption of innocence means or when and where it applies.


  36. by HatetheSwamp on October 5, 2023 6:27 am

    ...unconstitutional for us to point out that they have been defending Trump.

    What could that possibly even mean!!!?

    OD and pb have been clear that, in their opinions, y'nes support the weaponization of the justice system and the trashing of our constitutional republic "of the people, by the people and for the people" to create a Banana Republic.

    I'm not defending Trump. Speaking only for myself, here on SS, I am attacking y'nes and your, as po'd say, BLATANT hypocrisy.

    If MAGAs were trying this sort of thing with "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" I'd be posting the same thing...

    ...and, I'm confident OD would as well.


  37. by islander on October 5, 2023 6:45 am

    "I'm not defending Trump"

    LoL !!! Still in denial, eh Hate !!!


  38. by oldedude on October 5, 2023 7:53 am
    If Trump is accused, indicted, or is on trial for a crime, arguing that what Trump did is not a crime and/or claiming that no one is ever brought to trial for such actions

    YOU'RE "ass uming" he's guilty. We actually understand our judicial system, what the founders put in the constitution, and what is required of EVERYONE going into court. You're nothing but a raging TDSr that doesn't care how you get him to prison. If it's lies (which have been admitted to by DOJ), lying to the courts (were admitted to, changing evidence (and were admitted to), or any other way of jailing him is fine with you.

    You and those like you are an abomination to the constitution and justice system. You're nothing more than a lynch mob against a black man (in either Macon, GA or Oregon they're just about the same) that kissed his white girlfriend so you hang him. But I guess it's the new dimocrat party. No negotiation, and if other people die getting to what you want, that's nothing but collateral damage.


  39. by HatetheSwamp on October 5, 2023 8:05 am

    Yeah, OD. They don't think like rational people who are faithful to the Constitution.

    TDS ain't a joke. But, it's a serious political reality.


    isle,

    Remember. All of pb's opinions about the court cases are borrowed...

    ...from his three Legal Goobers.

    If you have a problem?, take it up with lib Dem Alan Dershowitz.


  40. by islander on October 5, 2023 8:53 am

    ”Remember. All of pb's opinions about the court cases are borrowed...

    LoL !! Yes we all know how you cowardly speak through other people including even your own multiple personalities. That’s where you hide…

    But guess what…

    We can all see you !!! 🤣


  41. by islander on October 5, 2023 8:58 am

    You still don’t get it do you od. LoL !!!

    You don’t seem to understand what the “assumption of innocence” means or when and where it applies, I hope this isn’t beyond your comprehension (and I suspect you really do understand) but we are not holding a criminal trial here and that’s where the presumption of innocence is required. Presumption of innocence is not found in the Constitution it is derived from the 5th 6th and 8th Amendments. It is not and cannot realistically be required or applied to what you or I think outside of a court of law. Simply ask yourself why a law enforcement officer would arrest someone for a crime if the officer and prosecutor actually believed the person was innocent? In a criminal trial all accused persons are innocent before the law until proven guilty.

    What you seem to be forgetting is that this is not a criminal trial. If I think Trump is guilty of a crime or you think Hunter Biden is…neither you nor I are violating any of their Constitutional rights.



  42. by Donna on October 5, 2023 9:01 am

    Exactly, islander.


  43. by HatetheSwamp on October 5, 2023 9:31 am

    Bullfernerner, isle. Certainly, isle, in this one case presumption of innocence doesn't apply.

    Here's where you don't UNDERSTAND, MAN, baha baha!

    Simply because a progressive Attorney General sues a private citizen doesn't make that citizen liable...and Big Brother's agent justified.

    You're wrong here, buddy. Face truth. We're a forgiving lot.

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, buddy!


  44. by oldedude on October 5, 2023 9:55 am
    isle- FIRST. It's the 14 amendment. The 8th amendment is about excessive bail, fines, and punishments.

    I honestly don't have any idea where you got that bullshit. Your answer is soooo asinine it shouldn't rate an answer. This is a cornerstone of our judicial system. France? not so much. England? now, maybe, but recently. I really suggest you (et.al) learn to read someday.

    Even Bundy was declared "innocent until proven guilty. Prosecution cannot even suggest he has been found guilty.

    Donna. Same goes. I can't believe that you, of all people would forget everything you might have learned about the Constitution and our processes.

    FYSA- When it says it's "derived" from a source, that means, they are citing the landmarks where it is become law. That might be court cases, but in something this fundamental in our law, they are citing the plethora of constitutional citations.

    I now know the differences between y'all and us. We prefer to use the constitution to say if someone is guilty or not. We prefer to say even Epstein was innocent until he was shown guilty in court. There's always times someone will get off on a technicality. And be found innocent. I don't like it, but that's the way our system works. AND I (for one) reference my vocalizations to the constitutional ends. I don't wipe my arse with the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

    You jump to the automatic conclusion based on your "feelings (Feelings, nothin' more than feelings. Tryin' to forget my little, Feelings of hatred. . .). Sorry, I digressed. You "feelings" don't matter at all. No one cares about them. You "feel" special because you have them? Seriously? That's plain stupid.

    The other piece of this is that trumpster doesn't own me every minute of every day, like you(all). Nor does pedojoe. I have bigger things to think about. My life isn't about visceral hatred. Honestly, I have a life that doesn't have time for you, your "butties" or trumpster. If I'm asked a question, I'll look at it and give my opinion. That' all I do. So good luck with your miserable, shallow, meaningless life.


  45. by Curt_Anderson on October 5, 2023 10:04 am
    All,
    It may seem confusing to read OD and HtS blathering about the Bill of Rights, "ass-uming" and that it's unconstitutional to opine that multiply-indicted Donald Trump is guilty before a verdict is rendered. It's confusing especially in light of the fact that both of them have been trying to convince us that Joe Biden is guilty of something even though he has not been charged with anything.

    This helpful chart clarifies OD and HtS's views:



  46. by Ponderer on October 5, 2023 10:10 am

    Their flaming, pig-ignorant hypocrisy is a constant source of amusement, Curt.


  47. by HatetheSwamp on October 5, 2023 10:12 am

    It's confusing especially in light of the fact that both of them have been trying to convince us that Joe Biden is guilty of something even though he has not been charged with anything.

    Please, Curt. Please, please, please, please...PULEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!...

    Produce a link to either of us suggesting that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" is "guilty" of anything. We've both been adamant that we see evidence that suggests that there should be an Impeachment Inquiry...

    ...which is a political...not criminal...process.

    With you, Curt, I try not to conclude that you're deranged but, honestly, here either you're disconnected from reality or you're lying about OD and ol pb.


  48. by Curt_Anderson on October 5, 2023 10:29 am
    "Impeachment Inquiry...which is a political...not criminal...process." --HtS

    HtS
    Seriously, you are attempting to cover yourself with that fig leaf of an argument? One does not attempt or "inquire" about an impeachment unless they believe the president is guilty of some serious crime.

    Impeachment and a subsequent conviction is a vehicle to remove a president from office if they are found guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". ---Article II, Section 4, US Constitution.


  49. by Donna on October 5, 2023 10:29 am

    od - The Constitution allows us to speculate about guilt or innocense. Everyone on this board speculates on guilt or innocense, but we all recognize that in a court of law a defendant is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    So I don't understand this ongoing debate. I think we're all on the same page. Maybe you're just addicted to arguing like so many are on social media.




  50. by HatetheSwamp on October 5, 2023 10:52 am

    One do not attempt or "inquire" about an impeachment unless they believe the president is guilty of some serious crime.

    No. Not is. May be.

    That's what I'm hearing from purple district GOPs.

    Impeachment and a subsequent conviction is a vehicle to remove a president from office if they are found guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". ---Article II, Section 4, US Constitution.

    Bang on.

    If this inquiry ends up with Joe facing an Impeachment Trial, it will be "high... MISDEMEANORS" that'll be where Joe is up the crick.

    Back in the Clinton Impeachment drama, Tony Snow, who was very well read and of the intellectual class of William F. Buckley, said that, in the FEDERALIST PAPERS, high misdemeanors were the equivalent of misdeeds, and that that last category was intended to be a broad catch-all to describe behavior by a President that is immensely inappropriate but hard to categorize.

    At this point, there's abundant evidence that Joe lied about the degree of his awareness of and connection to Hunter's foreign business dealings. I think it's appropriate to launch an inquiry into his, at least apparent, misrepresentation of the truth.

    I suspect that you, with your devotion to your Holy Trinity, may not even know that Joe's been busted. There is testimony and documentary evidence against Joe on that point. The Impeachment Inquiry seems justified. It's happening.

    What comes of it is, in my mind is yet to be determined.


  51. by Indy! on October 5, 2023 3:15 pm

    Douchowitz is not politically liberal in any way whatsoever. He uses some liberal stances as a lawyer, but that's a business tool as a shady lawyer - not a personal belief.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Legal Goober #1 exposes Trump NY Fraud trial as fraud"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page