Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Technically that doesn't mean that "When the President does it, then it is not illegal." If someone breaks the law then a crime has been committed, regardless of whether it is investigated and/or charges are laid.
Click to expand...
But if the district attorney looks at your case and say, "you are wrong junior attorney, there is no crime here," then it gets really weird if that means a crime was committed or not.
Click to expand...
Uhhh... no. Even if that district attorney says "no crime here", that doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed.
 
Gawd, these guys get their talking point out and just repeat it over and over louder and louder.

Clinton lied to the FBI and nothing happened to her. [Fact is, no she did not.]
Clinton and the DNC paid the Russians for dirt on Trump. [Fact is, no they did not.]

Reality matters not.


BTW, all this focus on obstruction seems to be at the expense of the 'of what' in that sentence. There's still the issue of who in that crowd coordinated with Russia during the campaign and what was the quid pro quo?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Gawd, these guys get their talking point out and just repeat it over and over louder and louder.

Clinton lied to the FBI and nothing happened to her. [Fact is, no she did not.]
Clinton and the DNC paid the Russians for dirt on Trump. [Fact is, no they did not.]

Reality matters not.
Click to expand...

They paid for Russian dirt.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The well-known Guardian propagandist Luke Harding has written a book about the CT, with the promising title "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win". Here's a review.
Click to expand...
A transparent and inept hatchet job.

Example :
"The second thing to note is that Harding’s modes of argumentation and standards of evidence are not – how can I be polite about this? – what I’m used to as an academic. Let’s take the example of Trump’s former convention manager, Paul Manafort, to whom Harding devotes an entire chapter, obviously on the basis that the Trump-Manafort connection somehow proves a Trump-Kremlin connection."
Click to expand...
"Obviously because" hardly meets the standard of evidence an academic would expect, does it?

Obviously Trump has played a minor and late part in Manafort's career, which easily fills a chapter and fleshes out the character that Trump got himself involved with.

And, yes, Luke Harding is the genius who is responsible for that the WikiLeaks State Department Cables landed in full and unredacted on the internet, because the idiot printed the password to the archives in his book about Assange's outlet (and in particular that leak by Chelsea Manning).
Click to expand...
Your point being?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The last time I was on a jury, the judge gave us a definition of what "reasonable doubt" is.
Click to expand...

It is state specific with no federal standard

https://illinoiscaselaw.com/no-reasonable-doubt-definition-for-the-jury/

In 1994, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the jury instructions defining “reasonable doubt” in two state criminal cases violated due process. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994). This decision established that:

“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’ ”
Click to expand...


Illinois courts strongly discourage providing a reasonable doubt definition to a jury. See People v. Speight, 153 Ill. 2d 365, 374 (1992).

“The law in Illinois is clear that neither the court nor counsel should attempt to define the reasonable doubt standard for the jury.” Reflecting this sentiment, there is no recommended jury instruction that would provide such a definition. See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 2.05, Committee Note 78 (“The Committee recommends that no instruction be given defining the term “ ‘reasonable doubt.’”).
Click to expand...
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Republican primary candidates paid to generate said Russian dirt.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Click to expand...

And then Democrats paid to receive it. I don't understand what additional modification your post is attempting to accomplish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom