Jump to content

Candidate for POTUS claims indicted opponent should not be allowed to run


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Your passion/diehard partisan bias precludes you from reading something and actually interpreting it...

I interpreted what you wrote. If you believe I got it wrong, you're free to clarify what you meant.

So you now understand that NOTHING was "precluded."

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

As for point #2.. you do realize that I was referring to Trump? Of course not.  

How would I know that when you FAILED to mention it?

I offered an example of which I am very familiar. Again, at least you've semi-clarified what you meant, though without any example.

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

3. Talking about something is not working. They take credit for policies for which they mostly know nothing about the details. I work with them and when pressed for details.. you get blank stares. They say, "talk to my aide or assistant". If you actually knew something.. you would not say that. 

No one can know the details about everything. They are managers and know with whom to consult.

That's not doing NOTHING. Have you ever managed a large department? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I'm saying I already clearly and emphatically answered that question, so accusing me of dodging it makes you look stupid. 

But you didn't.   I asked you in this thread and instead of answering you tried to change the subject 100 times by claiming that you don't need a defendant to have a defense lawyer :) 

And once again - i asked a pretty simple question in the last post and you're STILL avoiding answering it

Instead you're lying about what i said and taking it out of context. 

 

Why can't you answer the question? It's a pretty simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

I hate to point out the obvious, but there are lot's of lawyers pontificating on the media about Trump.

Now you're saying Trump is a pedo and almost certain murderer???

Believe me, if there was any evidence of that, they would have charged him with that too.

The hyperbole of you guys!!

@Moonbox is kind of like that. It's pretty clear he's suggesting that, but he will now spend 15 pages demanding he never suggested anything of the kind. 

Especially if he's losing the discussion. As you can see above when he couldn't argue against the fact that the whole trial looks like a witchhunt to bury a political opponent, he tried to fixate on an unrelated point. I said the lawyers who defended trump in court were his defense lawyers and that a defense lawyer is the guy who presents the defendants defense, and he's tried to claim i said that only lawyers in court are defense lawyers.  

And for what? It makes no difference, other than he tried to pretend that trump's defense lawyer said the judge was great but it wasn't trump's defense lawyer. 

He''ll do the same thing with you, claim he never said things he did, then try to change the subject to something minor that he thinks he can win on, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

Dershowitz explains the trial and it's merit(or lack thereof).

Certainly the last things he says are true: "I just don't understand it. And how a judge can just sit there in this courtroom and not dismiss this case is beyond me."

I have to wonder if Douchowitz even read the state law. in which all the details he doesn't understand are specified.

Once again, Douchowitz is pandering to the defendant trying to pick up the appeal business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Dershowitz also says OJ Simpson was framed, that Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong and that the age of consent should be lowered to 15.  🤡

That is his job and he can say anything in public to drum up business from his clients, but you won't catch him telling those LIES in court, cause his license would be on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

That is his job and he can say anything in public to drum up business from his clients, but you won't catch him telling those LIES in court, cause his license would be on the line.

You mean you won't catch a lawyer testifying instead of being a lawyer :)  LOL - well that's true of ALL lawyers :) They don't testify other than to offer closing arguments 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

I hate to point out the obvious, but there are lot's of lawyers pontificating on the media about Trump.

Now you're saying Trump is a pedo and almost certain murderer???

Believe me, if there was any evidence of that, they would have charged him with that too.

The hyperbole of you guys!!

OJ was the "almost certain murderer" that Douchowitz defended. Duh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Dershowitz was also accused by one of Epstein's victims. Couple that with Dershowitz's outspoken advocacy that the age of consent be lowered to 14 or 15 and it starts to paint a pretty ugly picture. 

I am aware of that accusation. I am also aware that Dershowitz strongly denied her claims and that witness admitted that she may have made a mistake.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/epstein-victim-drops-lawsuit-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-rcna56250

Big surprise! Defense lawyers often represent reprehensible clients like Epstein.

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Certainly the last things he says are true: "I just don't understand it. And how a judge can just sit there in this courtroom and not dismiss this case is beyond me."

I have to wonder if Douchowitz even read the state law. in which all the details he doesn't understand are specified.

Once again, Douchowitz is pandering to the defendant trying to pick up the appeal business. 

How do your legal credentials stack up against those of Alan Dershowitz?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ironstone said:

How do your legal credentials stack up against those of Alan Dershowitz?

Apparently much better than I used to believe. He has really declined in his old age, even though he was always a blatant panderer to defense clients, like most defense lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Apparently much better than I used to believe. He has really declined in his old age, even though he was always a blatant panderer to defense clients, like most defense lawyers.

So you are an actual lawyer?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I am aware of that accusation. I am also aware that Dershowitz strongly denied her claims and that witness admitted that she may have made a mistake.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/epstein-victim-drops-lawsuit-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-rcna56250

Big surprise! Defense lawyers often represent reprehensible clients like Epstein.

Sure, some lawyers do represent reprehensible clients. But they don't often argue that the reprehensible behavior should be legal.

"Epstein is innocent of illegal acts with underage girls." When it turns out he's not innocent, "I didn't know my good friend was abusing underage girls." And also, it should definitely be legal anyway. And by the way, I didn't do what she said I did, but remember, it should be legal."

No matter your politics, that should raise some eyebrows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I have followed Douchowitz for a LONG TIME, which is how I know how he behaves in court and out.

I'll bet you didn't watch the entire OJ trial on TV like I did.

dude I literally had to explain what a subpoena is to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I have followed Douchowitz for a LONG TIME, which is how I know how he behaves in court and out.

I'll bet you didn't watch the entire OJ trial on TV like I did.

I've known of Dershowitz for a long time. He's a well known defense lawyer and taught law at Harvard, and also has tons of experience in constitutional law and criminal law.

I didn't watch the OJ trial because I was at work. And I'm not a lawyer by the way.

I will try and refrain from using childish insults (like Douchowitz) against anyone simply because I disagree with someone.

Edited by ironstone

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I've known of Dershowitz for a long time. He's a well known defense lawyer and taught law at Harvard, and also has tons of experience in constitutional law and criminal law.

I didn't watch the OJ trial because I was at work. And I'm not a lawyer by the way.

I will try and refrain from using childish insults (like Douchowitz) against anyone simply because I disagree with someone.

I don't just disagree with him. He was very dishonest when he got OJ acquitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I asked you in this thread and instead of answering you tried to change the subject 100 times...

I refer you now for the second time to my answer from over a week ago - the answer you've already admitted you forgot about.  I guess you're 90 years old and you "forgot"...again!?  

 

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...by claiming that you don't need a defendant to have a defense lawyer :) 

and here you are as usual, making up batshit things to argue with yourself about.  In a single sentence, you managed to make yourself look retarded twice.  Clown college would be proud of you.  🤡🤡🤡

 

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I refer you now for the second time to my answer from over a week ago

I refer you to my question above which is not answered by your answer a week ago. 

And i think the guy who demands i answer a question i answered a PAGE ago never mind a week ago  and which i did answer again for the 12th time or so doesn't get to hide behind posts from the past that don't address the question being asked today. 

Pretty simple question. Nothing in your previous answer a week ago answers it, so just answer the question. 

But you can't. If you did you'd have to admit the trial looks like a witch hunt designed to interfere with an election. 

Which it is.  Which is why you refuse to answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

and here you are as usual, making up batshit things to argue with yourself about

Lol!!!  And here you are as usual denying what you very clearly said because you've realized it's stupid :)  you do this every single time. :)  Just as i told the newbie above you do :)  

A defense lawyer is someone who presents a defendant's defense.  I said that a dozen times. You argued for about a page that that wasn't accurate And that trump's defense lawyer was someone who never did make trump's defense.

I get why you are trying to pretend you didn't say that now. It was a stupid thing to say. What would be great is if you started realizing that things were stupid to say before you said them. That would probably save us both a lot of time

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I refer you to my question above which is not answered by your answer a week ago. 

It was.  Read it again, or at least explain what you figure was lacking in the answer.  Otherwise, this is just more of your standard flapping and flailing.  🤡

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

It was..  

Didn't even begin to address the question.  At all. 

Which is not surprising, an answer given a week before the question was asked isn't likely to address the question very well :) 

So  you have no answer to give. Gotcha.  So then you agree there's no reason to think of this as anything other than a sham, you just don't like that so you're avoiding answering my straight forward question from earlier. 

No wonder you always wind up looking stupid. You have to lie and twist SOOO much to try to make your point. Whereas i can say my points straight up, like a defense lawyer is the lawyer that presents a defendants defense :) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,804
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Quietlady
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • CrakHoBarbie went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Contributor
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Mathieub earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mathieub earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...