Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 820

Thread: Trump 2020 - There are still children in detention separated from their parents

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    This is one of those things that instinctively feels like "that should be illegal" but then immediately you realize there's no law that would make it illegal, despite it sucking so very flagrantly.
    there is some good, maybe? Possibly?


  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    2,694
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegate View Post
    there is some good, maybe? Possibly?

    I'm sure Dershowitz would argue that it's not against the law and that handing out bags of money to get Trump reelected is perfectly fine because it's in the nations best interest to continue having Trump as our great and fearless king.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    587
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    This has gotten very scary. Dershowitz has argued that Trump can do whatever he wants if it's in the service of winning re-election, under the assumption this is in the public interest. He's backtracked on Twitter and claimed his comments have been distorted by the EVIL FAKE MEDIA, however it's likely given republicans (those who don't think he went too far) an excuse to rally behind.

    Which means when Trump is acquitted, he'll be able to cite this in future wrongdoing. It would also seemingly un-impeach Nixon.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)


    there's another dress! man, this impeachment is just like the last one.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DF118 View Post
    It would also seemingly un-impeach Nixon.
    Nixon wasn’t impeached. He resigned before the House voted on Articles of Impeachment.

    Dershowitz’s shitty argument won’t set precedent.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys have had the dress she was wearing when she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump tested for DNA.

    They have the DNA.

    Now the have subpoenaed Donald Trump for his DNA.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mp-dna-sought/

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,706
    Mentioned
    467 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys have had the dress she was wearing when she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump tested for DNA.

    They have the DNA.

    Now the have subpoenaed Donald Trump for his DNA.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mp-dna-sought/
    No "acid phosphatase activity" means no proof of semen, though, unless I'm misreading this

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elevenism View Post
    No "acid phosphatase activity" means no proof of semen, though, unless I'm misreading this
    The lab noted that acid phosphatase activity, a “presumptive indication of the presence of semen,” was not detected.
    Not sure what that means to a civil case. Men don’t always ejaculate when they sexually assault.

    Probably moot, because Trump isn’t ever gonna give up his DNA.
    Last edited by allegro; 01-31-2020 at 12:00 PM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Sounds right. But, if there were enough skin cells to get a DNA sample (which you need a fair amount for if you don't have semen), that would confirm he was awfully up close and personal. It could have been saliva as well.

    But, I agree, he'll never give a DNA sample.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    and why can't someone take one? oh right, fake hair.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    471
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    I think for prosecuting logistics it has to be voluntary or court ordered. Sure, you could nab a sample and confirm, but you couldn't prosecute unless it was done according to procedure.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    north colorado
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnetic View Post
    I think for prosecuting logistics it has to be voluntary or court ordered. Sure, you could nab a sample and confirm, but you couldn't prosecute unless it was done according to procedure.
    Even if they had a full DNA match, they couldn't prosecute because the statute of limitations has passed i think. Could be wrong though.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmcfly View Post
    Even if they had a full DNA match, they couldn't prosecute because the statute of limitations has passed i think. Could be wrong though.
    This isn’t a criminal suit.

    Even with civil, DNA (or ANY discovery) must be court-ordered (meaning: parties request it but then the court approves it and then orders it).

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    you are all ruining a perfectly cromulent joke.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    north colorado
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    This isn’t a criminal suit.

    Even with civil, DNA (or ANY discovery) must be court-ordered (meaning: parties request it but then the court approves it and then orders it).
    Yes, but civil suits don't involve prosecution though is my point.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegate View Post
    you are all ruining a perfectly cromulent joke.
    I think people’s minds also went to bullshit CSI episodes of swiping his drinking glass or toothbrush.
    Last edited by allegro; 01-31-2020 at 12:17 PM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmcfly View Post
    Yes, but civil suits don't involve prosecution though is my point.
    They couldn’t even arrest him because of the old statute (pre 2006, see link below).

    DNA doesn’t help prosecution “logistics.” It just helps (or doesn’t) convince a jury. OJ Simpson, for instance.

    Juries are the key in both criminal and civil. Except criminals have the option of a bench trial in criminal. But I digress.

    This particular case is a defamation case.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...te-ncna1077321
    Last edited by allegro; 01-31-2020 at 12:19 PM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    north colorado
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Well, you used the words “prosecuting logistics” and I didn’t know why.

    DNA doesn’t help prosecuting logistics, it just helps (or doesn’t) convince a jury. OJ Simpson, for instance.

    Juries are the key in both criminal and civil. Except criminals have the option of a bench trial in criminal. But I digress.

    This particular case is a defamation case.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...te-ncna1077321
    I literally never used the phrase "prosecuting logistics." I was just pointing out that they could not prosecute (criminal charges) because of the statute of limitations. However, I did see that they extended the statute of limitations for certain instances of sexual assault in New york in 2019, so I'm not sure of the qualifications for that.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    11,907
    Mentioned
    821 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmcfly View Post
    I literally never used the phrase "prosecuting logistics." I was just pointing out that they could not prosecute (criminal charges) because of the statute of limitations. However, I did see that they extended the statute of limitations for certain instances of sexual assault in New york in 2019, so I'm not sure of the qualifications for that.
    Sorry, I am reading on an iPhone and this convo is moving way too fast in a weird direction and I didn’t grok. You were right, he misused the term “prosecuting.” I was editing as I was trying to understand who said what and why. In between the silly DNA-stealing stuff.

    Trump won’t even give up his financials or tax returns. I suspect he’ll only give up his DNA under penalty of death.

    But it sure is hilarious seeing the possibilities.
    Last edited by allegro; 01-31-2020 at 12:30 PM.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Sorry, I am reading on an iPhone and this convo is moving way too fast in a weird direction and I didn’t grok. You were right, he misused the term “prosecuting.” I was editing as I was trying to understand who said what and why. In between the silly DNA-stealing stuff.

    Trump won’t even give up his financials or tax returns. I suspect he’ll only give up his DNA under penalty of death.

    But it sure is hilarious seeing the possibilities.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)



    I had to check the article because people like to make fake quotes as a interpretation of what was said but no, he actually said that.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Well it doesn't matter anymore, they don't have the votes for witnesses...which is complete bullshit.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Yeah, this is going to be a depressing next few months. and you know the Democrats who are still running will find a way to fuck it up between the infighting and stupid decisions they keep making on an individual basis.

    neverminding the media and their insistence on clicks over information.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    587
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Nixon wasn’t impeached. He resigned before the House voted on Articles of Impeachment.

    Dershowitz’s shitty argument won’t set precedent.
    Regarding Nixon, I know, I was admittedly being hyperbolic. Interesting Dershowitz wasn't present the next day, too.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,000
    Mentioned
    408 Post(s)
    Adam Schiff is kicking major ass right about now

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    4,579
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    Adam Schiff is kicking major ass right about now
    Adam Schiff is speaking to the world's biggest echo chamber. No one who needs to HEAR his words is listening. Everyone who is thirsty for justice is just being told what they already know.

    Don't get me wrong - I love what he's been saying. But it's hard for me to call it "kicking ass" when nothing is actually happening as a result of his words.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    2,584
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    I'll have you know I don't actually like this post, but I do begrudgingly accept it's message.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,067
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    I'd say vote, but Russian might have a say in that.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    587
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    My respect for Susan Collins has gone up a fraction. But I'm pretty sure she calculated her vote knowing the motion would be defeated anyway after running the numbers.

    Anyway, that's it for impeachment.
    Last edited by DF118; 01-31-2020 at 04:46 PM.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    4,579
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DF118 View Post
    My respect for Susan Collins has gone up a fraction. But I'm pretty sure she calculated her vote knowing the motion would be defeated anyway after running the numbers.

    Anyway, that's it for impeachment.
    No respect for her at all. I fully believe what I've been reading - whether it's called this or not - regarding her getting a "hall pass". The gist of it: party leadership knows that some of their own are on thin ice and might need to break ranks in order to save their own asses. So once leadership KNOWS that they have all the votes they need, they give permission to those who need it and allow them to break ranks without immediately turning on them and torching their careers.

    Fuck Susan Collins and every GOP senator.

Posting Permissions