Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Maine Eagle  USA 10 Nov 20 1.08am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
So how is Trump involved? Because he appointed someone who made a decision you don’t agree with. Why don’t you relax a bit? The scary man has gone away. As I said above, Trump and Epstein were friends. Please read the thread, Ted.
"We need to look into the Oranges". Commander In Cheat, April 2019. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Teddy Eagle Online  10 Nov 20 1.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
As I said above, Trump and Epstein were friends. Please read the thread, Ted. OK, I’ll read it again, Maine.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
jeeagles  14 Feb 21 12.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Been a while on this one. He's now been acquitted twice from impeachment. It seems there's a host of reasons why they couldn't impeach him, the main issue is that only a sitting president can be impeached, therefore, the whole circus has been a complete waist of time and an obvious witch hunt. That aside, there is evidence that the protests where planned prior to his comments. He can't incite riots that are already planned. On of the double standards coming from the demonstrators is that it seems OK for Anti-FA rioters to threaten police, shopworkers and private citizens with the backing of one party, but completely different if rioters are at the door of those in Washington. We don't know what Trump is saying, because all his social media accounts have been shut down, yet the same companies are doing nothing to block those who regularly give prominent footballers racist abuse. One of the Democrats has comes out and said he will be found guilty in the "Court of Public opion". I hate to point this out, but the justice system is the court of public opinion, The People vs Trump and he's been acquitted, twice. They've got a first ammendment right to make statements like that, but it's factually incorrect and inciting hatred. The law isn't a popularity contest and there should be serious repercussions for prominent politicians that make statements like that for all politicians and not just Trump. All just goes to show the Democrats are just as bad as the republicans. Wasting public funds on a vindictive campaign thats not productive to the public good.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 21 1.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
Been a while on this one. He's now been acquitted twice from impeachment. It seems there's a host of reasons why they couldn't impeach him, the main issue is that only a sitting president can be impeached, therefore, the whole circus has been a complete waist of time and an obvious witch hunt. That aside, there is evidence that the protests where planned prior to his comments. He can't incite riots that are already planned. On of the double standards coming from the demonstrators is that it seems OK for Anti-FA rioters to threaten police, shopworkers and private citizens with the backing of one party, but completely different if rioters are at the door of those in Washington. We don't know what Trump is saying, because all his social media accounts have been shut down, yet the same companies are doing nothing to block those who regularly give prominent footballers racist abuse. One of the Democrats has comes out and said he will be found guilty in the "Court of Public opion". I hate to point this out, but the justice system is the court of public opinion, The People vs Trump and he's been acquitted, twice. They've got a first ammendment right to make statements like that, but it's factually incorrect and inciting hatred. The law isn't a popularity contest and there should be serious repercussions for prominent politicians that make statements like that for all politicians and not just Trump. All just goes to show the Democrats are just as bad as the republicans. Wasting public funds on a vindictive campaign thats not productive to the public good. I have long thought this thread has the wrong title and you add weight to that. It ought to be renamed "Bias in favour of Trump". Whether an ex-President could be impeached, or not, had not been tested before. That is decided by Congress and has now been answered. They can and one has just been. Discussion over. The accusation of incitement didn't just relate to his speech on the 6th but involved all his actions in the months before and after the election. Months when he WAS the POTUS. Making sure that these events were put on the public record and there to be referenced should Trump surface again was the point of the trial. Getting it over quickly so that the new administration can deal with the mess he has left them makes political sense. It's far from a "witch hunt" when the person being dealt with doesn't need to be hunted. His sins were always on full public view. This was a requirement placed on democracy and good government. To brush it aside would have been an abject failure and an invitation for someone to try it again. Indeed if Trump now does anything similar, as a private citizen, he could find himself charged with sedition and jailed. He may well yet be by some of the States he attacked. Impeachment is not a trial that determines whether something is legal or not. It is wholly political. The justice system is not involved. Therefore how public opinion reacts is very much relevant. Indeed it is the whole point.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop bristol 14 Feb 21 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
...which presumably means that double jeopardy doesn't apply and the justice system remains free to prosecute him for a myriad of alleged offences? However I suspect this won't serve anyone's interests so politics may surpress the urges of the prosecuting authorities.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jeeagles 14 Feb 21 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Surely the only point of a trial is to establish if someone is guilty or not. If the purpose of putting him on trail was for any other reason then it's an abuse of the power and the legal system, and harassment. Essentially, you have just said its OK for the government to put a private citizen on trial simply to record they've said stuff they don't agree with. Prior to the trail legal experts were saying there was no discussion to be have, but the witch hunt happened anyway. A government elected on a wave of euphoria for BLM and political reforms has just used the law to threaten a private citizen for speaking freely? You can see why so many potentially innocent American's went to prison as part of a plea bargain without trail if thats the way Democrats think it was acceptable to behave. Seems more like something you'd get in Russia or China. You don't need to test the rules for impeachment. They are pretty clear. You can only impeach a sitting president. Had say, the CPS tried to bring someone to trail when it was clear the case would be acquitted, then you'd expect an internal investigation. The Democrats should face the same level of scrutiny here. People are dying across American. People are in prison because of a failed legal system, and they are pursuing a pointless show trial. I'm not arguing against using any other mechanism to prosecute him if they can prove it. However, all this will do is let him play the victim card, and show that its yet more petty, vindictive and willing to abuse power. 'The Court of Public Opinon' sound like they are trying to get the lynch mob mobilised. Politicans cannot say things like that. For example, much as I believe that Lewis Dunk is a sex offender and all the evidence pointed that way, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers (potentially Brighton supporters), and any claim saying he is a nonce, simply because he as in a hotel room where a young woman a was stripped naked whilst passed out, written on in shaving foam, and had her photo taken without consent, would still be slander, even if the court of public opinion thinks differently from the Brighton jury. That's the legal system and it has to be respected.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 21 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
...which presumably means that double jeopardy doesn't apply and the justice system remains free to prosecute him for a myriad of alleged offences? However I suspect this won't serve anyone's interests so politics may surpress the urges of the prosecuting authorities.
So I think there are likely to be a series of indictments coming forward in the months and years ahead. Some personal, some political and some commercial. Let's hope they keep him very busy and away from attempting more self-promotion.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 14 Feb 21 4.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I see that this thread has risen from the dead like Frankenstein’s monster...
Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 21 4.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
Surely the only point of a trial is to establish if someone is guilty or not. If the purpose of putting him on trail was for any other reason then it's an abuse of the power and the legal system, and harassment. Essentially, you have just said its OK for the government to put a private citizen on trial simply to record they've said stuff they don't agree with. Prior to the trail legal experts were saying there was no discussion to be have, but the witch hunt happened anyway. A government elected on a wave of euphoria for BLM and political reforms has just used the law to threaten a private citizen for speaking freely? You can see why so many potentially innocent American's went to prison as part of a plea bargain without trail if thats the way Democrats think it was acceptable to behave. Seems more like something you'd get in Russia or China. You don't need to test the rules for impeachment. They are pretty clear. You can only impeach a sitting president. Had say, the CPS tried to bring someone to trail when it was clear the case would be acquitted, then you'd expect an internal investigation. The Democrats should face the same level of scrutiny here. People are dying across American. People are in prison because of a failed legal system, and they are pursuing a pointless show trial. I'm not arguing against using any other mechanism to prosecute him if they can prove it. However, all this will do is let him play the victim card, and show that its yet more petty, vindictive and willing to abuse power. 'The Court of Public Opinon' sound like they are trying to get the lynch mob mobilised. Politicans cannot say things like that. For example, much as I believe that Lewis Dunk is a sex offender and all the evidence pointed that way, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers (potentially Brighton supporters), and any claim saying he is a nonce, simply because he as in a hotel room where a young woman a was stripped naked whilst passed out, written on in shaving foam, and had her photo taken without consent, would still be slander, even if the court of public opinion thinks differently from the Brighton jury. That's the legal system and it has to be respected. You are confused. This wasn't a trial, in any legal sense. It was an impeachment, which is a political act. Any comparisons with what happens in a Court of law are therefore meaningless. All your comparisons can therefore be disregarded as irrelevant. The SC let it be known because they don't get involved in politics, that they probably wouldn't entertain any reference to them. As a political matter it was solely for Congress to determine. And they did. It was pretty obvious he would not be convicted but that was never the point. It was to ensure that his contribution to all that led up to the events on 6th Jan were laid out and then put on the public record.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 14 Feb 21 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
I see that this thread has risen from the dead like Frankenstein’s monster... It's alive.... ALIVE! Edited by BlueJay (14 Feb 2021 4.42pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 16 Mar 21 3.02pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
The US Democratic media, which is a high majority of it....Lied continuously over Trump. Many of its lies were stated as true by posters on this very thread over years in fact. It has its own phrase now...blue anon. Here is Tim Pool on just one of the lies used against Trump, all over the media, which is now revealed as fake. The fake quote used by the Democratic media was used in Trump's impeachment brief. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Mar 2021 3.21pm)
'I can't stand innuendo. If I see one in a script I whip it out immediately.' (Kenneth Williams) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 16 Mar 21 4.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yup for those who prefer to read Absolutely disgraceful. Funny how media mistakes always seem to go in one direction when its about Trump. Still he's guilty in the court of public opinion, hurty feelings etc.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2020 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.