Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ok, this can be said of the left. The evidence is out there to convict Biden of actual crimes. The dems don't even want to investigate him so spare me this. When will the dems get serious about corruption no matter where it is?
Ok, but this is you not wanting to actually discuss it. Convenient that you can just hand wave away what you want.
Then why haven't the Republicans presented any?
Well I think I pretty much said what I wanted to say on my part. The hive mind Democrats has bastardized the Constitution and interfered with our election system but the damage is done now.
No where in this indictment are there charges of insurrection.
That is part of this case:
If only that were true
Wait, are you saying that if an obviously guilty person gets found not guilty due to jury bias that it means that the victims of that crime should not be able to sue that person? You are making even less sense now.
Leftists love dictictorial edicts, I bet you would love the power of the government to disfranchised your political opponents.
Where is the evidence? I keep hearing from Republicans that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of him doing crimes, then yes. Let's convict him. But when a person claims that such evidence exists and then cannot produce it leads to the conclusion that that person was talking out of a lower orifice.
Are you sure? If it talks at all about the speech on January 6 it is making that charge.
The article states that Trump was considering giving pardons to those convicted for crimes connected with January 6th. Would that constitute aid and comfort?
That is part of this case:
Yeah when it comes to lawsuits and getting money, or recompense in some fashion, but I don't think that really applies, or was intended to be used as a weapon on political candidacy itself by removing said person with the intent to gain the upper hand in an election.
Ok, Trump said to march peaceably. He never told them to riot or enter the capital etc. It is a reach to say he wanted an insurrection. Questioning an election is his right just like it was Hillary's right. She still denies Trump won in 2016. Show us where Trump said to take over the capital. You cannot.
Possibly. That would be after the fact. But the attempted insurrection and Trump's role in it is part of the indictment. It is on page 6. I cannot copy and paste this source for some reason:
I am betting that he will quote Hillary pointing out that Trump lost the popular vote. Of course that is not the same thing at all.
Now you are cherry picking. Yes, he did say that once. But he repeatedly told them that they had to fight. Specifically "fight like hell". You cannot cherry pick evidence. When you do so you make your case weaker when the cherry picking is exposed. There were far more exhortations to act violently in that speech than there were to act peacefully.
Perhaps they hoped to keep Trump off the ballot without one. Or maybe they expected that such a ruling would be overturned and simply wanted to humiliate and enrage Trump. I wouldn't object if that were the case. You'd have to ask them.
And you're all incorrect. Indictments result in criminal trials as Trump and his orbit of also soon-to-be felons will soon see. Impeachments don't.
Not your call. Judges decide on constitutionality, not private citizens.
It's a reach to say he didn't.
Yes, it was, but trying to subvert one wasn't.
