• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House looking at ethics rule to weaken special investigation: sources

The extent to which this is driving you nuts is its own reward.

To the extent that you think gossip is news worthy is sad.
 
Please read our constitution for that. Innocent until proven guilty.
That was easy.

Do you work for a court accusing Trump? I dont either. So our conversation isnt covered by the 6th amendment. You can presume Trump is innocent all that you want. But unless you make a case I see no reason to believe you. And thus will just brush your claim to the side.

Our legal system at this point has not done anything Constitutionally wrong against the President. I think that the accusations being levied towards the Trump admiration are worth investigating. Whether Trump is directly guilty or not we need a proper investigation. Our legal system IMO is the best and so why not let it perform? Why are Republicans fighting this? I dont really get why anyone doesnt want this since they could be venerated and could point to those results. A not guilty verdict would pretty much destroy the Democrats reputations. Of course a guilty verdict would destroy the Republicans reputations. I wish there was a middle ground where both parties reputations were destroyed.
 
Do you work for a court accusing Trump? I dont either. So our conversation isnt covered by the 6th amendment. You can presume Trump is innocent all that you want. But unless you make a case I see no reason to believe you. And thus will just brush your claim to the side.

Don't believe that constitution that is not my issue.
It is not my job to prove him innocent that is backwards.
It is up to you to prove him guilty.

So far all we have is conjecture and anonymous unverified information.
That in no way would stand up in court.

You asked for me to prove him innocent and I did.
He is innocent until proven guilty.

Our legal system at this point has not done anything Constitutionally wrong against the President. I think that the accusations being levied towards the Trump admiration are worth investigating. Whether Trump is directly guilty or not we need a proper investigation. Our legal system IMO is the best and so why not let it perform? Why are Republicans fighting this? I dont really get why anyone doesnt want this since they could be venerated and could point to those results. A not guilty verdict would pretty much destroy the Democrats reputations. Of course a guilty verdict would destroy the Republicans reputations. I wish there was a middle ground where both parties reputations were destroyed.

It is performing the investigation is happening as we speak.
If anything comes of it that trump broke the law in any way I expect him to be prosecuted as such.
He is not above the law.

I however will wait for actual fact not unverified nonsense that is being spewed.
More so ignored when people of authority have stated nothing was done inaccurately or wrong.
 
Don't believe that constitution that is not my issue.
It is not my job to prove him innocent that is backwards.
It is up to you to prove him guilty.

So far all we have is conjecture and anonymous unverified information.
That in no way would stand up in court.

You asked for me to prove him innocent and I did.
He is innocent until proven guilty.
Again I can assert any damn thing that I want about trump and will never be in violation of the Constitution. That is because presumption of innocence is not about some guy on the Internets opinions. If you feel otherwise call the feds on me. Turn me in it would be a good laugh to hear their reaction.

And no you didnt prove trump innocent, You asserted that I was compelled by the US Constitution to assume that Trump is innocent. You just do not really know what you are talking about.

Now I am not the one making accusations against Trump. I am sharing some of my opinions of Trump. But this is a debate forum, what I say here has no real bearings on anything other than our entertainment. SO if you want the evidence call up those peoople that actually are working on the case. But I doubt that they will even answer your call.



It is performing the investigation is happening as we speak.
If anything comes of it that trump broke the law in any way I expect him to be prosecuted as such.
He is not above the law.

I however will wait for actual fact not unverified nonsense that is being spewed.
More so ignored when people of authority have stated nothing was done inaccurately or wrong.

Trump does not need to break a law to be impeached. I suggest researching impeachment.

And dont act like I am not sitting here waiting on the facts too. But here is something to think about: If trump is innocent why doesnt he just cooperate? Why is it that Trump at every turn is trying to assert that Russia did not interfere with the election? Everyone but Trump and his supporters acknowledge that Russia interfered in the election. If they did not interfere then how come Trump never brought that evidence to the public that he promised that he has?

See we are past wondering if Trump did something wrong, we have moved to when and how much. You can pretend that parroting Trumps defense is a sure fire argument, but it just makes me reject your argument along with Trumps.
 
Again I can assert any damn thing that I want about trump and will never be in violation of the Constitution. That is because presumption of innocence is not about some guy on the Internets opinions. If you feel otherwise call the feds on me. Turn me in it would be a good laugh to hear their reaction.

You have no clue and now you are strawmanning.
Your post was prove him innocent. That was your argument.

I did just that. The constitution says that he is innocent until proven guilty.
So I defeated your argument in one sentence.

You can assert whatever you want without evidence it is meaningless and baseless.
So it is up to you to prove evidence not conjecture to support your assertions.

It is good to know that you assertions are just baseless meme. Thanks for proving that to everyone.


And no you didnt prove trump innocent, You asserted that I was compelled by the US Constitution to assume that Trump is innocent. You just do not really know what you are talking about.

Actually I did unless you can prove where he has been found guilty or there is evidence that
Would make him guilty. So far yes you don't know what you are talking about.
This is caused by TDS. You avoid all logic for baseless accusations as long as they are anti-trump the facts don't matter.

Now I am not the one making accusations against Trump. I am sharing some of my opinions of Trump. But this is a debate forum, what I say here has no real bearings on anything other than our entertainment. SO if you want the evidence call up those peoople that actually are working on the case. But I doubt that they will even answer your call.

if you can't support your assertions then you have no argument.




Trump does not need to break a law to be impeached. I suggest researching impeachment.
Actually he does otherwise what are you going to charge him with.
high crimes and misdemeanors is what there has to be evidence of to impeach. So yes you should research it a bit more.

And dont act like I am not sitting here waiting on the facts too. But here is something to think about: If trump is innocent why doesnt he just cooperate? Why is it that Trump at every turn is trying to assert that Russia did not interfere with the election? Everyone but Trump and his supporters acknowledge that Russia interfered in the election. If they did not interfere then how come Trump never brought that evidence to the public that he promised that he has?

No the accusation is that he colluded with Russia. There is no cidence that he colluded with russia.
Even obama officials after the election said there was no evidence that he colluded with Russia.

At least 40k some dnc emails were leaked by someone inside the campaign.


See we are past wondering if Trump did something wrong, we have moved to when and how much. You can pretend that parroting Trumps defense is a sure fire argument, but it just makes me reject your argument along with Trumps.[/QUOTE]
 
You have no clue and now you are strawmanning.
Your post was prove him innocent. That was your argument.

I did just that. The constitution says that he is innocent until proven guilty.
So I defeated your argument in one sentence.

You can assert whatever you want without evidence it is meaningless and baseless.
So it is up to you to prove evidence not conjecture to support your assertions.

It is good to know that you assertions are just baseless meme. Thanks for proving that to everyone.
Presumption of innocence does not prove innocence. lol



Actually I did unless you can prove where he has been found guilty or there is evidence that
Would make him guilty. So far yes you don't know what you are talking about.
This is caused by TDS. You avoid all logic for baseless accusations as long as they are anti-trump the facts don't matter.
Now Now you are assuming that I said things that i did not.






if you can't support your assertions then you have no argument.
I dont think you are talking about my assertions now.




Actually he does otherwise what are you going to charge him with.
high crimes and misdemeanors is what there has to be evidence of to impeach. So yes you should research it a bit more.
I am not charging trump with anything. And now you need to look up High Crimes and how they relate to impeachment.



No the accusation is that he colluded with Russia. There is no cidence that he colluded with russia.
Even obama officials after the election said there was no evidence that he colluded with Russia.

At least 40k some dnc emails were leaked by someone inside the campaign.
After all that big talk about evidence certainly you have the evidence on you right? According to you, you cannot now give me some source where someone is just making a claim. I want to see the actual evidence or you are just a hypocrite. You dont have to mail it too me just post some photos of it. And funny how you were going to wait until the investigation is over, but now you know before its over. Come on whats with the double standards? You are starting to sound like Trump.
 
Presumption of innocence does not prove innocence. lol
It says nothing of presumption it says innocent until proven guilty.
That means you are in fact innocent. Your distortion is a failure.


Now Now you are assuming that I said things that i did not
Not at all what you said is right there in black and white. I am simply asking you to back up your assertions
With some kind of real evidence.




I dont think you are talking about my assertions now.
You evidently either don't know what you write or are choosing to be dishonest.
You said trump could be impeached without committing a crime.

I again proved this incorrect. He has to be charged and found guilty on high crimes and misdemeanors
.


I am not charging trump with anything. And now you need to look up High Crimes and how they relate to impeachment.
No I don't. You need to do your research.


After all that big talk about evidence certainly you have the evidence on you right? According to you, you cannot now give me some source where someone is just making a claim. I want to see the actual evidence or you are just a hypocrite. You dont have to mail it too me just post some photos of it. And funny how you were going to wait until the investigation is over, but now you know before its over. Come on whats with the double standards? You are starting to sound like Trump.

I gave you evidence. Clapper former head of the CIA along with other members of the intelligence committee including democrats
Have said there is no evidence.

No hypocrisy at all i don't have to post anything regarding he is innocent and the articles saying that here is none has been posted dozens of time and has been all over the news.

You are attempting to shift he burden of proof because you can't support your assertions.
It's ok other people making the same assertions can't either.

Since you are now devoid of any further argument since you have no proof to back up what you are saying
I think we can end this.
 
It says nothing of presumption it says innocent until proven guilty.
That means you are in fact innocent. Your distortion is a failure.
Wow that rates as one of the stupidest things that I have heard on this site. Presumption of innocence is just a different way of saying innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution doesnt think that they are innocent hence why they are in court. But Trump isnt going to be in a court of law unless separate criminal charges are pressed.


Not at all what you said is right there in black and white. I am simply asking you to back up your assertions
With some kind of real evidence.
What assertion would that be?




You evidently either don't know what you write or are choosing to be dishonest.
You said trump could be impeached without committing a crime.

I again proved this incorrect. He has to be charged and found guilty on high crimes and misdemeanors
.
So you didnt go and look up high crimes did you?



No I don't. You need to do your research.




I gave you evidence. Clapper former head of the CIA along with other members of the intelligence committee including democrats
Have said there is no evidence.

No hypocrisy at all i don't have to post anything regarding he is innocent and the articles saying that here is none has been posted dozens of time and has been all over the news.

You are attempting to shift he burden of proof because you can't support your assertions.
It's ok other people making the same assertions can't either.

Since you are now devoid of any further argument since you have no proof to back up what you are saying
I think we can end this.
"Have said that there is no evidence" I like how you take people at their word when it matches your position. I also like how articles/news saying ****, are now evidence to you.
 
Wow, now we're using "two people familiar with White House thinking" as sources. What's next - "some guy who likes white houses?" "a woman who once toured the oval office?" "a person intimately familiar with people named Donald?"

Lunatics are running the media asylum at this point. They wonder how they are slightly less trusted than congress.

https://www.google.com/amp/people.c...r-child-ponography-sexting-pleads-guilty/amp/

"Former congressman Anthony Weiner admitted in court Friday to sending sexually explicit messages and photos to a 15-year-old girl, PEOPLE confirms.
Weiner pleaded guilty in federal court to a single count of transferring obscene material to a minor. The disgraced politician surrendered to the FBI in New York Friday morning, and pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Loretta Preska."

Another one bites the dust.

That's like 3-4 this past month.

How is that even possible the media can be less reliable?
 
Wow that rates as one of the stupidest things that I have heard on this site. Presumption of innocence is just a different way of saying innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution doesnt think that they are innocent hence why they are in court. But Trump isnt going to be in a court of law unless separate criminal charges are pressed.
you are innocent until proven guilty.
twhich means that trump is innocent. again I have already proven this why you continue to argue this is beyond me.

what the prosecution thinks is irrelevant. they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did something wrong.


What the prosecution thinks is irrelevant to the constitution. The constitution > than the prosecution. they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty.

What assertion would that be?
that trump has committed a crime of some kind. there is a lot of hearsay and rumors but nothing that supports them.
Since you seem to believe that they are true then surely you can support your arguments.

So you didnt go and look up high crimes did you?

again I don't have to. In order to go through with impeachment you need to prove high crimes or misdemeanors. so please tell us what high crimes or misdemeanors
that trump has done. of course your original argument was you didn't need him guilty of anything to impeach him which was wrong.

"Have said that there is no evidence" I like how you take people at their word when it matches your position. I also like how articles/news saying ****, are now evidence to you.

These are verified sources. anonymous people not so much. you don't see to know the difference between the two.
someone that would have the information vs someone that we have no clue who it is. could be the guy that does the white house laundry.

anyway you still have not show here trump is guilty of anything just like everyone else so have a nice day.
 
you are innocent until proven guilty.
twhich means that trump is innocent. again I have already proven this why you continue to argue this is beyond me.

what the prosecution thinks is irrelevant. they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did something wrong.


What the prosecution thinks is irrelevant to the constitution. The constitution > than the prosecution. they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty.

The Senate despite your ignorance, is not a court of law.


that trump has committed a crime of some kind. there is a lot of hearsay and rumors but nothing that supports them.
Since you seem to believe that they are true then surely you can support your arguments.
I never made a claim that I do anything more than point at the words of the President and his actions thus far.



again I don't have to. In order to go through with impeachment you need to prove high crimes or misdemeanors. so please tell us what high crimes or misdemeanors
that trump has done. of course your original argument was you didn't need him guilty of anything to impeach him which was wrong.
And I asserted that you should research "High Crimes" and impeachment.
Here are two very solid sources:
Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Impeachment Clauses: James Wilson, Legislative Department, Lectures on Law

https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedf...judiciary_comm_staff_report_february_1974.pdf



These are verified sources. anonymous people not so much. you don't see to know the difference between the two.
someone that would have the information vs someone that we have no clue who it is. could be the guy that does the white house laundry.

anyway you still have not show here trump is guilty of anything just like everyone else so have a nice day.
They are just as verified as most of the accusations against trump.
 
The Senate despite your ignorance, is not a court of law.

has nothing to do with what I posted. the constitution says you are innocent that is all I need.

I never made a claim that I do anything more than point at the words of the President and his actions thus far.

So you have nothing as we all knew but until now you couldn't just admit it.

And I asserted that you should research "High Crimes" and impeachment.
Here are two very solid sources:

so again I will ask what high crimes and misdemeanors has trump done?
you still have yet to answer and continued deflection only continues to support what I have said.

you have nothing that warrents an impeachment article.

not liking the president is not enough and him having off the cuff remarks is not enough either.

They are just as verified as most of the accusations against trump.

no they are not. but you are desperately reaching for straws.
however thanks for admitting you have no evidence or proof that trump warrants an
impeachment but then again most of already knew this.

your TDS is getting out of control at this point.
 
has nothing to do with what I posted. the constitution says you are innocent that is all I need.



So you have nothing as we all knew but until now you couldn't just admit it.



so again I will ask what high crimes and misdemeanors has trump done?
you still have yet to answer and continued deflection only continues to support what I have said.

you have nothing that warrents an impeachment article.

not liking the president is not enough and him having off the cuff remarks is not enough either.



no they are not. but you are desperately reaching for straws.
however thanks for admitting you have no evidence or proof that trump warrants an
impeachment but then again most of already knew this.

your TDS is getting out of control at this point.

What you are doing is trying to lump me in with every other poster that you disagree with about Trump. I know this because in your post you just accused me of things I have never said.

But...

Trump has lied under oath, Trump appears to be a traitor, Trump is very bad at his job. It is your liberty to have any opinion that you want about the President, it is also mine. So far you have only shared your opinions as have I. But somehow you hypocritically think that I should magically provide information that you wouldnt accept if your life depended on it. Probably because that is what you think of everyone that thinks that trump is a lying, traitorous piece of ****.

My position is that appears Trump is a traitor and should be shot for treason. I have never asserted that I had direct evidence, that was just **** that you made up in your head. Go ahead search my posts, be my guest. Until then you are being hugely dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom