The Goat Pen

you gotta love a president that has the balls to do this

eCat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:59 pm you gotta love a president that has the balls to do this

Indeed!!

Jungle Rat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:03 pm Coup. That's rich and typical.

The leaders of both the FBI and CIA knowingly presenting false evidence to a FISA court so that they could plant human spies on Trump before, during the election, and after election. They also knowingly leaked their fake anti-Trump fictions to the press to harm Trump and help their Democrat co-conspirators. Those are all felonies.. The word “coups” exactly describes what they were doing.

I sure wish I could have had no witnesses to testify or documents presented against me at my trials.

In your case, you were entitled to face your accuser. Schiff didn’t allow Trump to face Ciamarella, the so called “whistleblower.” And Schiff certainly didn’t allow Trump’s lawyers to question his accuser like your lawyer was allowed to do.

Trump’s case in the Senate HAD witnesses. Problem was all but one of them were second hand. Such witnesses aren’t admissible in real courts like the ones that tried you, but they were in Schiff’s kangaroo court.

If in your case it was proven that the cops knowingly presented false evidence to the grand jury and leaked fake information info on you to the press, any judge in America would have tossed the entire case against you and prosecuted the prosecutor instead. (Google the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong.) That’s what happens in real court systems, not the banana republic stuff that Comey, Brennan and Schiff were running

And in your trial, the prosecution was given every opportunity to subpoena documents and evidence to present their case against you. If at trial your lawyer did his job and objected giving the prosecution evidence on legal grounds (e.g. it involved attorney client privilege) it would then be decided by a higher court. That might take awhile. The prosecutor would have to decide to present the case without the subpeona’d witness, or wait and hope the higher court forces the subpoena’d witness to testify.

But one thing the prosecutor in your case was not allowed to do - and what no prosecutor is allowed to do - was send the case to the jury without subpoena’ing a witness, and then demand that the JURY subpoena the witnesses that he was too incompetent or lazy or impatient to subpoena himself. That’s what Schiff’s Soviet show trial tried to do to the Senate. Schiff (the prosecutor) didn’t even bother to subpoena Bolton. Instead Schiff presented his case to the jury (the Senate) and demanded that THEY subpoena Bolton since he was either too incompetent or lazy or impatient to subpoena Bolton himselr.That behavior would never be tolerated in a real courtroom like the one you were in.

You got a fair trial. Trump did not. No wonder the grownups in the Senate tossed it. As Johnny Cochran said to the OJ jury, “If their case is shit, you must acquit.” It was, and they did.

You are way far out there.

Where exactly? Be specific.

Mars

"you gotta love a president that has the balls to do this"

The balls to do what? Make a standard political speech?

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/14/p ... peachment/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... uld-resign

President of sass

You just can't make this stuff up. From the NEW YORK TIMES:

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies

According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... li=BBnb7Kz

These are the same people that are asking Americans to let THEM decide your doctor, your medical tests, and what treatments they will allow you to have. These are the same people that are asking Americans to let THEM decide what sort of speech you will be allowed to utter. These are the same people that want us to believe in THEIR imaginary climate catastrophes.

These are the same people who consider themselves "the smart people." They are the ones who brag that they have the highest SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT scores. They are the ones who brag about their PhD, MBA, and JD degrees. They are the high tech gurus with expertise in all the latest hardware and software. Yet, after 36 hours, they STILL haven't figured out how to count and report votes in a state with only 3.18 million people. (For comparison, one borough of New York City - Manhattan - has 8.5 million.)

You just can't make this stuff up.

Somebody's butt hurt...

I hate politics. Kill em all

hedge wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:45 am Rush was sincerely surprised that Trump gave him that award last night. You could tell by his reaction that it was totally unexpected and unscripted...

Lmao

Especially since it was announced beforehand

Rush was too fucked up on oxycontin to get the message. He's probably happy he's got the lung cancer, now he can be all Johnny Caiiiissshhhh about his addiction to narcotics and say the doctors prescribed it. Well, he'll need it. Good riddance, jackass...

Classy.

It’s the third day after the Iowa caucus. Did they ever figure out who won?

FEEL THE BERN!!!

Whenever I hear the word “emoluments” I always think of Tick. He had great hopes they would bring Trump down. This one’s for him:

CNN. BREAKING

Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump

Washington(CNN) A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

The ruling is a major triumph for the President, who's intensely sought to keep his business affairs in private, just days after the Republican-held Senate voted to acquit him on impeachment charges for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The case's dismissal effectively kneecaps one of several attempts Democrats have made to dig up more informartion about Trump's business holdings.

Looks like the courts telling Trump’s mortal enemies that their mere hatred of Trump doesn’t justify prying into his taxes.

The ruling was that they didn't have standing to bring the suit, not that he wasn't guilty of violating the clause. At this point, it appears that nobody has standing to bring any suit or charge against him. He's basically a king. I'm sure if the Supreme Court ruled against him 9-0 on something he'd claim they didn't have standing to do it and just ignore the ruling, and Prof & Co. would be cheering all the way...

hedge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:42 pm The ruling was that they didn't have standing to bring the suit, not that he wasn't guilty of violating the clause. At this point, it appears that nobody has standing to bring any suit or charge against him.

The court's judgement of "No standing" is a nice legal way of telling the partisan hacks, "none of your damn business." If I went to court demanding to see your tax returns for last 30 years, then unless I brought evidence those those tax returns had something to do with me, and my only reason for demanding those tax returns was "I don't like hedge, I believe that he is a bad person, and I can't prove he did anything wrong, but I want to see his tax returns so I can find something to prove how bad I believe he is," the court would laugh me out of their court room like they just did with this silly case.

More broadly, for the past 50 years, the Democrats could always count on the liberal-dominated courts to dictate leftist policies that could never prevail democratically at the ballot box (e.g. Roe v. Wade, NFIB vs Sabellius, Obergfell vs Hodges). After just 3 years of Trump putting two SCOTUS justices and a record number of other sane judges on the federal bench, the days of the courts being automatic mistresses of the Democrats are coming to an end. As this case demonstrates. About bloody time.