Former Prosecutor makes the case that Trump committed treason

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 20, 2022.

  1. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what?

    As I said I scanned a couple.- fish food for anti-Trump mud suckers.
    Pretentious buffoonery.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2022
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you believe the first unknown blog attorney that comes down the pike, eh?

    Goody for you.

    Well, here's my 'take'.

    So?

    Colin Kalmbacher is a relatively unknown journalist, his stories garner few comments like 1-10 average comments, has 10k followers on Twitter, member of TX state bar.

    Attorney's disagree with each other all the time.

    Kirschner was a Washington DC Prosecutor for 30 years. Has 613,000 twitter followers, and is well known with 355k followers on YouTube. His YT podcasts garners thousands of comments and views and is an MSNBC regular, often appearing with well known members of congress, senate, and the Justice Dept.

    That doesn't make Kirschner right, necessarily, but his message is resonating with a helluva lot more people and has tons more clout than whoever the hell Colin Kalmbacher is.

    See, it's about prosecution, persuading a jury, and Kirschner knows a lot more about that than Kalmbacher.

    For example, Kirschner was criticized asserting that Trump’s pandemic response or lack thereof amounts to second-degree murder.

    Well, I did some research and estimates are that his missteps in the early stages of the virus accelerated the death trajectory in the hundreds of thousands more than they would have had it acted more responsibility ( such as testing, etc, which is resisted because he asserted it caused 'more stats' ).

    If hundreds of thousands of deaths doesn't get you second degree, I don't know what does.

    It's like this, there are always more than one side to a story, get both, before you pull an arrow from your quiver.

    Kirschner is zealous and passionate, but I wouldn't characterize him as over zealous, he's had way too much experience.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2022
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Kirschner is zealous, but not over zealous, has 30 years experience as a prosecutor.

    IF he were back in office, it's a given that, with consultation of his staff, they would find a charge that is achievable.

    But, without such constraints, you're getting the passionate, untempered version of the man.
     
  4. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about YOU tell us?...lol.
     
  5. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing illegal about that, ya know. The Democrats tried to do the exact same thing in 2016.
     
  6. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The exact same thing?

    Biden To Democrats Objecting To Electoral College Results: 'It Is Over'

    Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts was the first to rise. Amid grumbling from other members, Vice President Biden, who presided in his role as president of the Senate, gaveled the body to order. He noted that any objection must be in writing, signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate.

    He asked McGovern if he had fulfilled all three. McGovern admitted the objection was not signed by a member of the Senate, and Biden threw it out.

    "In that case the objection cannot be entertained," Biden said, and Republicans stood and cheered.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/5085...cting-to-electoral-college-results-it-is-over

    A few Dem congressmen making pointless objections, which were quickly dismissed by then VP Biden, does not equate to the actions Trump and his minions took. Surely you can see that.
     
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No they didn't. And read the Constitution some time. It will do you some good.
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When the work product of the committee are from Trump's staff and republicans testimony, giving them every opportunity to counter the objective of the committee, you can't invalidate the work product of the committee, or claim it's one sided
    That's what.
    Incompetent rebuttal; sophomoric retorts, ad homs, lazy quips and vacuous drivel arising out of ignorance, etc., are a not a counter argument and do not merit a proper response.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2022
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a short video, I made sure if that. Surely, you are not that lazy.

    I could have transcripted it but hearing it spoken is more impactful.
     
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet again you're claiming to know things. Tell the class what the actual elements for the federal crime of "treason" are. SURELY your talking head covers that?
     
  11. Across the pond

    Across the pond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Blame McCarthy we don't already have that.
     
  12. trumptman

    trumptman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2021
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    626
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    No one said that and for people keeping track this is what is known as a strawman argument.

    Your take of comparing bloggers is hot garbage and I never asserted someone was right or wrong based on popularity. That in and of itself is another logical fallacy so you are two for two.

    The guy you used as an expert claimed that presidential pardons can be "illegal". It was pure nonsense. It is the worst type of nonsense because it shows a level of bias that ignores the laws outright.

    Your source may have been a decent prosecutor once upon a time but now he is a pundit who makes his money from clicks and views and it is clear he will say and do anything to get them.
     
  13. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't watch internet videos but I will ask whether the committee heard an opposing legal opinion as well? I didn't thing so.
     
  14. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just goes to show that many former prosecutors don't understand (or forgot) what treason is either.
     
  15. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,753
    Likes Received:
    11,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kevin pretty much had it covered very well... but I'll let him speak for himself... Your little Pelosi kiddie games are getting old... I wish we had some grownups in the House, maybe in November...

    https://www.republicanleader.gov/mccarthy-statement-on-select-committee-on-january-6/

    Washington, D.C. – House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) released the following statement on the Select Committee on January 6th:

    “Speaker Pelosi’s rejection of the Republican nominees to serve on the committee and self-appointment of members who share her pre-conceived narrative will not yield a serious investigation.

    “The Speaker has structured this select committee to satisfy her political objectives. She had months to work with Republicans on a reasonable and fair approach to get answers on the events and security failures surrounding January 6.

    “Instead, she has played politics. Lost in much of the news coverage is the fact that the Senate has already conducted bipartisan investigations that should serve as a roadmap for the House.

    “Speaker Pelosi’s departure from this serious-minded approach has destroyed the select committee’s credibility. The U.S. Capitol and the men and women who protect it suffered a massive leadership failure. We must make sure that never happens again and that is what Republicans will be focused on.”
     
  16. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,753
    Likes Received:
    11,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I blame Pelosi, thank you.. she declined them because they did not go along with her game she was playing..
    They didn't vote to impeach Trump, like all of the 9 members.

    https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2

    “With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2022
  17. Across the pond

    Across the pond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Your defence is to ignore the actual events and quote McCarthy's attempt to whitewash his role? Not very convincing.

    2 questions:
    - Why did McCarthy's initial proposal include 2 GOP members who were involved in the attempt to overturn the election, may have been called as witnesses, and obviously had incentive to obstruct the work of the committee?
    - When those 2 were rejected, why did McCarthy not negotiate to find a better solution, rather than withdrawing all 5 Republicans from the committee, which essentially let the dems do whatever they wanted?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2022
  18. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,753
    Likes Received:
    11,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would you know they attempted to overthrow anything.. Is Pelosi the judge and jury of Jordan and Banks..
    McCarthy did not need to negotiate anything, those were his picks, not Pelosi's..
    read it again..
    “Speaker Pelosi’s rejection of the Republican nominees to serve on the committee and self-appointment of members who share her pre-conceived narrative will not yield a serious investigation.

    “The Speaker has structured this select committee to satisfy her political objectives. She had months to work with Republicans on a reasonable and fair approach to get answers on the events and security failures surrounding January 6.

    “Instead, she has played politics. Lost in much of the news coverage is the fact that the Senate has already conducted bipartisan investigations that should serve as a roadmap for the House.

    “Speaker Pelosi’s departure from this serious-minded approach has destroyed the select committee’s credibility. The U.S. Capitol and the men and women who protect it suffered a massive leadership failure. We must make sure that never happens again and that is what Republicans will be focused on.”
     
  19. Across the pond

    Across the pond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is Banks' statement on being appointed: https://twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1417270635735228416
    That reads very much like he's asking to be kicked off, disparaging the work of the committee before it has even started. Why on earth would you seat someone like that? Before Jan 6th, Jordan texted Meadows saying Pence should throw out electors from so-called contested states. Both Jordan and Banks objected to the seating of electors. How can you argue they could have worked in good faith in the committee?

    And now, can you address my 2 questions?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2022
  20. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, keep trying to convince yourself.

    In other words equal to the value of the post I was commenting on.
     
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "I think..." does not equal "I know...".

    Moreover, how do you deduce "I know', when I pose the question to the audience "What say you?".
    Mockery/patronizing, etc., is posturing, a pseudo debate trick, and, as such, does not improve an argument.
    Former prosecutor Kirschner explained it, and I relied on his information, a point which I made very clear in the OP.
    You can disagree with Kirschner, of course, which is why I asked "What say you?".
    Unjust trivializing is posturing, a pseudo debate trick, and, as such, does not improve an argument.

    Your posturing aside, yes, he covers it, so please watch the video, I made it short, so time shouldn't be an excuse. Moreover, I also made it clear that I disagreed on one of the five points he raised.

    If you disagree with his points, elements, etc., feel free to do so.

    But, please do it without posturing, ad homs, cheap shots, loaded phrases, weasel words, etc., and also without alluding that because I don't pay your salary, you have the right to, which, of course you do, but I also have the right to ignore you. So, If you continue to conduct yourself in ways that do not actually improve your argument and where it is clear your intent is to annoy for the sake of your disingenuous gratification (some call it trolling) not for the sake of at least attempting to reach a meeting of mind, if at all possible, or otherwise refuse to conduct discourse with courtesy and sincerity, don't expect a reply.

    Now, if you want to argue a point which, is, in essence, a variant of 'physician, heal thyself', note that that argument doesn't negate the aforementioned points which clearly are establishing that I want to stick solely to courteous arguments, nothing more, nothing less, in any debate with you from this juncture forward. I make this my condition for discourse with you, personally, because you have expressed clearly you are here for your 'amusement', not for any sincere desire to discover if there are more compelling arguments than your own, and/or assist others in reaching higher levels of understanding should you be in that position to do so and/or that be the case.

    Otherwise, we just get into a pissing contest as to who can be more clever than the other, and that is not my purpose for being here, though you have expressed that it is, directly or indirectly, that that is your purpose for being here. I'm not here to feed your disingenuous desire for amusement and gratification. Sorry.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2022
  22. fullmetaljack

    fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,921
    Likes Received:
    6,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He doesn't need any convincing, the Trump staffers and administration officials who testified already did that quite nicely.

    For example:

    “I was somewhat demoralized, because I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact with — he’s become
    detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,”
    Barr explained in describing Trump’s continued stance on the election.
     
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Just curious, what graphics app are you using? I use an old version of paint shop pro.
     
  24. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will send you a pm.
     
  25. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. The exact same thing. Thanks for posting the link.
     

Share This Page