who will win? Trump or Biden?

[davidc4430]

vote now

[chameleon54]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

i caught a little of 'the drum' (a current events program on ABC TV) last night where they were discussing the civil unrest and impeachment progress in the USA

" The Drum " Hardly an independent, impartial pervayer of news and current affairs. Guest panels stacked with lefty bureaucrats and academics who are invited onto the show to spout forth personal opinion that reinforces whatever lefty topic is on the agenda for the day. I used to regularly watch it a few years ago, but like most things on the ABC, the bias has become blatant to the point I usually switch channels after a few minutes.. 

General discussion - not referring to anyone in particular-

https://www.9news.com.au/world/trump-impeachment-rioters-acted-on-presidents-orders-democrats-say-in... 

The Democrats have put together a very carefully edited, highly produced, often taken out of context, TV mockumentry as the center piece of their prosecution case. It may be emotive, but when so heavily edited and produced hardly presents as evidence.

I have seen a few of Trumps comments leading up to the attack on Capitol Hill, that could possibly be taken to mean physical attack, but they could also be taken as rhetorical phrase such as " fight for our freedoms ". I haven't seen anything that would stand up in any reasonable court that is definitely legally damning. " Innocent until proven guilty " and in this case the prosecution simply doesn't have the smoking gun it needs.

It appears the senate will find Trump has no case to answer and the impeachment will simply become another small footnote in the history of heavily partisan and spiteful politics. Trump will be free to go on and contest the next election if he chooses and who knows what will happen, four years is a lifetime in politics.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Chameleon wrote: The Democrats have put together a very carefully edited, highly produced, often taken out of context, TV mockumentry as the center piece of their prosecution case.

So if the video presented to the Senate was manipulated and a misinterpretation of what really happened, can we look forward to  the Trump lawyers setting the record straight by presenting one of their own to show:

So called rioters actually entering the Capitol in an orderly fashion and leaving again without causing any damage.

Leftist/Marxist infiltrators using 'false flag' tactics to incriminate innocent Trump supporters.

Trump supporters protecting senators and staff from these same lefties.

Trump supporters tearing down the gallows erected by (presumbly 'false flag') rioters and attempting to suppress the chants of 'Hang Mike Pence.'

Trump either  urging his supporters not to march on the Capitol or to keep that march scrupulously peaceful

Trump acting immediately to condemn the violence and urge that the perpetrators be subjected to the full force of the law

[chameleon54]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Chameleon wrote: The Democrats have put together a very carefully edited, highly produced, often taken out of context, TV mockumentry as the center piece of their prosecution case.

So if the video presented to the Senate was manipulated and a misinterpretation of what really happened, can we look forward to  the Trump lawyers setting the record straight by presenting one of their own to show:

So called rioters actually entering the Capitol in an orderly fashion and leaving again without causing any damage.

Leftist/Marxist infiltrators using 'false flag' tactics to incriminate innocent Trump supporters.

Trump supporters protecting senators and staff from these same lefties.

Trump supporters tearing down the gallows erected by (presumbly 'false flag') rioters and attempting to suppress the chants of 'Hang Mike Pence.'

Trump either  urging his supporters not to march on the Capitol or to keep that march scrupulously peaceful

Trump acting immediately to condemn the violence and urge that the perpetrators be subjected to the full force of the law

---

I,m sure they could do exactly that if they wanted too. Taking carefully selected, carefully edited, small segments, out of context and paste them all together with a patriotic soundtrack to form whatever image they wished to present. Exactly the same as the prosecution have done. 

Would it be emotive....probably......Would it be irrevocable proof of a particular point of view....definitely not.    And that seems to be one of the main problems the prosecution have. There is no smoking gun. Its all just based on innuendo and double entendre, depending on how the listener wishes to interpret it. 

If there was a clear smoking gun, I would be joining with others here baying for the impeachment to be ratified by the senate, but as it stands, the prosecution case is simply too flimsy and inconclusive. Hence the need for the paste up video rather than presenting clear, concise evidence.

We will all know in a few days what the outcome is, but at the moment it looks like the impeachment will fail ( as it should due to lack of conclusive, evidentry proof ) and the whole process will go down in history as just another piece of spiteful, Democrat, partisan politics.

[chameleon54]

The Democrats relying on a paste up, emotive video, rather than evidentry proof, highlights another huge flaw with the whole impeachment process. You have a group of highly partisan politicians, most with very little legal training and experience being asked to decide on a complex legal matter involving the highest office in the land.

This isn't the place for emotive, paste up videos, designed to sway opinion based on emotion, it is the place for clear, concise, legal evidence that directly addresses matters of law.

The process should be overseen by the countries high court, with the highest ranked judges overseeing proceedings and based strictly on legal evidence. This would remove the partisan politics and provide a much better framework to ensure an unbiased outcome that people could have a lot more confidence in..

[the_great_she_elephant]

Chameleon wrote The process should be overseen by the countries high court, with the highest ranked judges overseeing proceedings and based strictly on legal evidence. This would remove the partisan politics and provide a much better framework to ensure an unbiased outcome that people could have a lot more confidence in..

On that point I have to agree with you - and it wil be interesting to see what happens when some of the insurgents do come to court and  claim in their defence that they were acting under the orders of the POTUS.

[the_great_she_elephant]

And what evidence are you suggesting was left out of the video that makes it a  a paste up, emotive video, rather than evidentry proof,

[imastawka]

I don't think they have to rely on any video.

A lot of them were 'Johnny on the spot' and so will react to whatever fears they had on the day.

That will be enogh to carry it through IMO

[myoclon1cjerk]

That's what Donald was hoping for. Stacking the Supreme Court with conservatives.
He's as guilty as they come. Anyone who says otherwise is a blinkered Proud Boy or a Qanon nutter.

[not_for_sale]

What are we to make of the people who support or defend the violence and killing that took place in the US Capitol? Are they just as disturbed as the insurgents, or misguided in themselves? Is it their minds, personalities, or both?

[chameleon54]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
That's what Donald was hoping for. Stacking the Supreme Court with conservatives.
He's as guilty as they come. Anyone who says otherwise is a blinkered Proud Boy or a Qanon nutter.

---

I,m not debating whether he is guilty or not. I tend to think he knew what he was doing in inciting the mob. The question is whether he was cunning enough to do it in a way that was not culpable in a legal sense.

I suspect this is the case and this is backed by the fact the Democrat prosecution have been unable to pin down a single incident that categorically proves his guilt, instead relying on a cut and paste video of small pieces, taken out of context to try to present a narrative. Basically, they have been outsmarted again by Trump. 

All up, not enough clear cut evidence to convict and a conviction at this level ( or any level ) should never go ahead without categorical proof. The Democrats simply dont have it and it looks like they will fail for a second time.