No, the audio is clear as day. Saying can do anything does not mean that I have done it. — NOS4A2

What sophistry.

Now we know where you hang your hat.

What? Only since 4 minutes ago?

If you’re a star, you can grab ‘em by the pussy. But if you’re a President, you can grab ‘em by the Justice Department.’ — Wayfarer

Indeed. There's an irony here. With all due respect, I'm starting to think that NOS4A2 is a pussy too!

For some reason he's hiding from a lot of our questions to him! LOL



Yo NOS4A2,

Are you thin-skinned like your boss daddy Dumpertrumper?

FYI-In this forum, you won't be able to hide. It's not rigged like the way you prefer other things. Let's test your logic please:

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

tick tock tick tock

LOL

Speaking of simple logic, I'm on a roll, so here's a bonus question. I want to test your consistency.

In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

You've got two questions, and counting, that you need to reconcile!

LOL

Just confront the likely truth: both Trump and Clinton enjoyed the sex ring of Epstein. Yes, now two Presidents.

It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/trump-roger-stone-trial-jury

Lol

If they were a Trump supporting Republican would it have been rigged in Stone’s favour?

And “rigged” is the wrong word unless the prosecution intentionally put them on the jury, hiding their political beliefs. As far as I’m aware juries are selected at random with the prosecution and defence both having the opportunity to ask them questions and ask for them to be dismissed if they show bias.

But what exactly do you want in a jury? Only those with no political opinions? I doubt there are many.

Besides, it was Stone on trial, not Trump. Did the foreman show strong anti-Stone bias? And is there reason to believe that the evidence was insufficient and that the jury knowingly gave the wrong verdict?

Some semblance of impartiality would be nice. Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system. Of course that’s a lot to ask, especially in Washington.

Again, juries are selected at random and both sides have the opportunity to ask a juror to be dismissed. I don’t know what more you expect. Should every juror be comprehensively vetted by the FBI with only centrist independents being eligible?

Unless you have reason to believe that the case was weak and that the foreman improperly pressured the other jurors to convict then this accusation of the trial being “rigged” is pro-Trump hysteria.

Yeah the problem occurred somewhere in the voir dire. Whether it was the fault of his own attorneys or someone else is unclear.

You wouldn’t object to the jury foreman being a former Republican congressional candidate, and MAGA-hat wearing activist who tweets out pro-Trump posts every day?

Not if I had no reason to believe that their opinion influenced their verdict.

If they were the lone hold-out in the face of what the other jurors (including other Trump supporters) claimed was overwhelming evidence - as was the case with Manafort - then I would.

Not if I had no reason to believe that their opinion influenced their verdict.

If they were the lone hold-out in the face of what the other jurors (including other Trump supporters) claimed was overwhelming evidence - as was the case with Manafort - then I would.

Then you’re a more trustworthy man than me, that’s for sure.

Interestingly enough, the judge denied Stone’s demand for a new trial because of a biased juror just under 24 hours ago. apparently the juror was IRS. But now there is this immediately after that decision.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/roger-stone-s-request-for-new-trial-denied-by-judge

Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

That's question #3. (I'll check in daily and repost my questions in case you forget to answer them LOL.)

Thanks for the questions, Shillary. I hope you check in every day.

What do you hope to accomplish here? Seriously. I’m trying to figure you out. Either you work for Breitbart and are throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks to use in your editorials, or you work at the White House doing similar work, or you work for the Internet Research Agency, or you are Steve Bannon, or you are just trolling us because you’re in love with diapered creamsicles, or you’re bored?

It sure is funny to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel to try to reach Trump’s tiny penis to your mouth.

Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?

I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?

I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!

I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

What do you hope to accomplish here? Seriously. I’m trying to figure you out. Either you work for Breitbart and are throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks to use in your editorials, or you work at the White House doing similar work, or you work for the Internet Research Agency, or you are Steve Bannon, or you are just trolling us because you’re in love with diapered creamsicles, or you’re bored?

It sure is funny to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel to try to reach Trump’s tiny penis to your mouth.

I love politics, and this aspect of politics is of particular interest to me. I enjoy the dialectic. I admit that I find it strange that an opposing opinion is met with such hostility, especially from those who claim to enjoy philosophy, but then again so much the better. Also, it helps get through an otherwise boring work day.

Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?

I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?

I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!

I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

You don’t need my permission, friend. You do you,

I love politics, and this aspect of politics is of particular interest to me. I enjoy the dialectic. I admit that I find it strange that an opposing opinion is met with such hostility, especially from those who claim to enjoy philosophy, but then again so much the better. Also, it helps get through an otherwise boring work day. — NOS4A2

Okay. I just want you to know that I don’t hate Trump supporters. I just hate Trump.

Okay. I just want you to know that I don’t hate Trump supporters. I just hate Trump.

That's fair and I appreciate that. The going rate was me being accused of being a troll or Russian bot, so this is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

You're just providing good practice.

:wink:

You’re welcome. I’m very passionate about politics. I have been ever since 9/11. I may get personal sometimes, but I fight like a Republican. Just know that I don’t hate everyday people. I mostly hate the people on TV, which I think is part of the design to divide the nation against itself so the corporations can keep the government divided and ineffective.

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

You’re welcome. I’m very passionate about politics. I have been ever since 9/11. I may get personal sometimes, but I fight like a Republican. Just know that I don’t hate everyday people. I mostly hate the people on TV, which I think is part of the design to divide the nation against itself so the corporations can keep the government divided and ineffective.

You're a Democrat? I've never liked either party and will remain an independant, though I do favor the Republicans more and more these days. But I'm with you: I hate the people on TV. I hate fox news as much as I hate CNN. I would also include in that celebrities and those who give each other golden statues at award shows.

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

I think they're right. I don't think someone should be impeached because of partisan differences. I think the bar should be set much higher for impeachment, especially when it comes to democratically-elected officials. What do you think?

...great! I'm going to add some from my other thread, so if you don't mind there might be a total of 20 questions or so. Is that alright?

Again it's not meant to embarrass you, but only to demonstrate where you're likely inconsistent in your reasoning.

In the meantime if you want to try to tackle those four questions I'd greatly appreciate it! If not that's okay, I'll add them to the running list.

You're a Democrat? I've never liked either party and will remain an independant, though I do favor the Republicans more and more these days. But I'm with you: I hate the people on TV. I hate fox news as much as I hate CNN. I would also include in that celebrities and those who give each other golden statues at award shows. — NOS4A2

I’ve always voted Democratic. I guess that makes me a Democrat. However, I would have been happy under Eisenhower, I think. George H.W. Bush wasn’t bad for a Reaganomics-type president. Obama was a disappointment for me, but I do believe that his and George W. Bush’s policies got us out of the Global Financial Crisis, even though Clinton and Bush, Jr. paved the way into it.

I can totally understand how Trump got elected. I just don’t see any policies of his that I like (to put it mildly).