Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 11:43:47 GMT -5
What damage does it do to us in the world? What are you talking about? He isn't POTUS. He's FORMER POTUS. As far as his impact on government or geo-political policy, he's a nobody; "...just a slob like one of us.". The only downside to American prestige is that no country is ever going to ask him to come on over and help monitor their election as Jimmy Carter used to do. Other than that, zip. ![](https://thenationroar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cher-1024x768.jpg) Nice fold.
|
|
Make America Great Again !!!
Supreme Being-like Member
|
Post by Panama pfRedd on Aug 4, 2023 11:46:32 GMT -5
Ironic.
|
|
................................ ![](https://i.postimg.cc/c4VRQYRD/flag.jpg) ................................ = Panama pfRedd - 2021 Regular Season Champion = ............................... ![](https://i.postimg.cc/mZ3YSGTq/flag1.jpg) ................................
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by nu5ncbigred on Aug 4, 2023 11:54:55 GMT -5
He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. Exactly. 👏👍
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by nu5ncbigred on Aug 4, 2023 11:58:22 GMT -5
So a tier of justice for former presidents and a different one for you and me. Got it. That is such a naive statement. He said essentially if you are going to try to jail a former president, knowing all the damage that this action does to us in the world, then you better make sure your evidence, case, whatever, is open and shut. A slam dunk. Once he goes to trial it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." Only those on the progressive extreme left can’t understand that.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 12:08:30 GMT -5
That is such a naive statement. He said essentially if you are going to try to jail a former president, knowing all the damage that this action does to us in the world, then you better make sure your evidence, case, whatever, is open and shut. A slam dunk. Once he goes to trial it is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." Only those on the progressive extreme left can’t understand that. If the government's case isn't sufficient, the defendant will be acquitted. That's how the system works. What's the problem?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 4, 2023 19:20:42 GMT -5
LOL!!!! Wait a minute. It's been quite a while now but didn't you steal that particular pitiful response from the FSU law clerk?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 4, 2023 19:22:29 GMT -5
Only those on the progressive extreme left can’t understand that. If the government's case isn't sufficient, the defendant will be acquitted. That's how the system works. What's the problem? The problem is that the indictment and in particular the timing of the indictment appears to be politically motivated to give cover to the Biden Crime Family.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 4, 2023 19:45:28 GMT -5
If the government's case isn't sufficient, the defendant will be acquitted. That's how the system works. What's the problem? The problem is that the indictment and in particular the timing of the indictment appears to be politically motivated to give cover to the Biden Crime Family. So much for a higher standard before accusations against a POTUS should be made. LOL....
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by nu5ncbigred on Aug 4, 2023 20:34:04 GMT -5
Only those on the progressive extreme left can’t understand that. If the government's case isn't sufficient, the defendant will be acquitted. That's how the system works. What's the problem? You still don’t get the point he was making. No one suggested a different standard in the court case once it actually gets to court.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by cbisbig on Aug 4, 2023 21:28:49 GMT -5
Lame overused response. Get something new.
|
|
ROLL TIDE!
29 SEC Championships 18 National Championships
2015-16 Bowl Champion Douche 2020 Pandemic Bowl Champ
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 4, 2023 22:34:25 GMT -5
If the government's case isn't sufficient, the defendant will be acquitted. That's how the system works. What's the problem? You still don’t get the point he was making. No one suggested a different standard in the court case once it actually gets to court. Not sure how that is relevant if the claim is that we should have a higher standard to bring an indictment and then drop down to a lower one when it comes to the actual proof. Such an idea is nonsensical on its face.
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 5, 2023 9:01:15 GMT -5
The problem is that the indictment and in particular the timing of the indictment appears to be politically motivated to give cover to the Biden Crime Family. So much for a higher standard before accusations against a POTUS should be made. LOL.... ![](https://i.imgflip.com/7uu8lt.jpg)
|
|
OK, throw Trump in jail in 2022
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by arkon on Aug 5, 2023 9:36:19 GMT -5
He is suggesting that it isn't enough that guilt be proven beyond the normal standard of reasonable doubt, rather that it requires some sort of super duper version of it; a Nixonian standard, whatever that is. Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. That's horseshit. It doesn't, it shouldn't matter who a defendant is. Equal protection under the law means everybody gets treated the same and NOBODY gets special treatment...including former presidents. Guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt. For everybody.
|
|
It isn't enough to love Ohio State. You also have to hate m******n
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 5, 2023 10:04:06 GMT -5
Hmmmm.... so you don't think that a situation that involves a historic attempt to jail a former president should require somewhat more than "reasonable" doubt? His statement was: "If the attorney general appointed by the incumbent president authorizes the prosecution of the president's chief election rival, the evidence of a serious crime should be overwhelming. His guilt should be clear beyond doubt, so as to avoid any reasonable suspicion that the prosecution was motivated, even in part, by partisan consideration.Compare reasonable doubt to beyond doubt. And remember, he is saying to bring the charges the prosecutor should have overwhelming evidence. If he goes to trial the standard of reasonable doubt should still apply. Your bias is showing. That's horseshit. It doesn't, it shouldn't matter who a defendant is. Equal protection under the law means everybody gets treated the same and NOBODY gets special treatment...including former presidents. Guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt. For everybody. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Nobody is saying he shouldn't get equal treatment. Right now he is not. Several Democrats have similar activities and the DOJ has turned a blind eye to them. And again, all they are saying is that if you are going to drag a former president into this kind of charge you need to make damn sure your case is solid. Y'all need to learn to interpret things just a bit better.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 5, 2023 10:18:37 GMT -5
That's horseshit. It doesn't, it shouldn't matter who a defendant is. Equal protection under the law means everybody gets treated the same and NOBODY gets special treatment...including former presidents. Guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt. For everybody. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Nobody is saying he shouldn't get equal treatment. Right now he is not. Several Democrats have similar activities and the DOJ has turned a blind eye to them. And again, all they are saying is that if you are going to drag a former president into this kind of charge you need to make damn sure your case is solid. Y'all need to learn to interpret things just a bit better. Why is a former president entitled to such treatment and not the rest of us?
|
|