Trump-backed Rep. Mary Miller says at rally that overturning Roe v. Wade is "victory for White lif

Umm, no. What about a WITNESS in a congressional investigation?

Try again.

 

No cross examination = no due process = show trial.

 

These are WITNESSES, not parties. And it's not a trial. Wrong yet again.

Focus on the circumstances, my good chum.

 

To an extent, yes — BLM though argues they are being unjustly targeted. White “babies” are not so it doesn’t make sense to identify them directly unless it is a dog whistle.

 

It’s an investigation, not a trial
A bipartisan one at that

 

White lives matter.

 

The population IS declining. The birthrate is low.

https://econofact.org/the-mystery-of-the-declining-u-s-birth-rate

Teen pregnancies have been in decline for over 30 years, largely due to education and access to contraception.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/

Miller is just another dim bulb in the ranks of elected officials. We get the government we ask for by electing an endless stream of self-important nincompoops like this.

 

I DID look it up, but the difference is only about 5%.

 

If you question the source of my opinions or knowledge, or present information that I know is not accurate, I respond. If you don't like my responses, or just don't care enough to read the links I include, then please don't waste MY time by replying in the first place.

Thank you.

(The bolded words are common courtesies, not something we see here very often. Just sayin'.)

 

Get lost!

 

Hardly, more like 30 percent of abortions

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/the-demographics-of-abortion-in-america/

 

Reflective ironic post^^^.

 

DICTIONARY.COMM, show trial
noun (especially in a totalitarian state) the public trial of a political offender conducted chiefly for propagandistic purposes, as to suppress further dissent against the government by making an example of the accused.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/show-trial

No cross examination = no due process = show trial = witch hunt

 

No cross examination = no due process = show trial.

The " hearings are a political witch hunt, a show trial, kangaroo court.. Google those one terms and you will get a peek into the future.

DICTIONARY.COMM, show trial

noun

(especially in a totalitarian state) the public trial of a political offender conducted chiefly for propagandistic purposes, as to suppress further dissent against the government by making an example of the accused.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/show-trial

 

Congressional investigations are often show trials.

No cross examination = no due process = show trial.

Ordinary Americans are very familiar with how congressional show trials/witch hunts work.

“THE WITCH-HUNT

In 1950, an obscure American Senator named Joseph McCarthy announced that he had a secret list of 205 officials in the U.S. State Department who were members of the Communist Party (later the list was found to be a fake). The news shocked America. McCarthy held a series of televised hearings that were like court room trials.Dozens of people were accused of being communists. Many lost their jobs and some were sent to jail, although there was often no evidence against them. Others accused their friends to save themselves. These hearings became known as the "witch hunt", a term that comes from the Puritan era, when witches were burned in public. It is portrayed in The Crucible by Arthur Miller.The McCarthy witch hunt extended even to Hollywood. People whose names were on the "black list" were accused of being communist or communist sympathisers. They were fired, or forbidden to work in the film industry. Even Charlie Chaplin was forced to move to England.”
MCCARTHY AND THE WITCH-HUNT, By William Bertrand, Formation Langues.
https://williambertrand.fr/mccarthy-and-the-witch-hunt/

That tactic ruined Sen. McCarthy. Expect a similar result.

Election Is Coming.

 

Thank you for you opinion
I bolded the key word in your definition that shows this cannot be a show trial.

 

IOW, the "hearings" are just another typical corrupt congressional show trial/witch-hunt without due process designed to cover-up the truth.

"A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors.[2]

Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes.[3] When aimed at individuals on the basis of protected classes or characteristics, such trials are examples of political persecution. The term was first recorded in 1928.[4]" Wiki

 

What do you not understand about this not being a trial?

 

It is a victory for white life. What’s wrong with saying so?

 

Ooh! Proving my point, thank you! So classy!

 

Looky there ... you can do research when you have a point to make.

Point noted. I wouldn't want to argue abortion demographics with the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. I mean, they aren't at all biased on the issue, are they? </sarcasm>

In all seriousness, the article doesn't cite a source other than the CDC's statistic about women in their 20s. I'd like to know where they got the rest of their numbers.

 

You cannot seriously tell me that you're somewhat familiar with the abortion issue and you have not heard that minorities tend to have an overwhelming amount of abortions compared to non-minorities.

That was Margaret Sangers whole plan!

 

Which part of "Point noted" did you not understand? I'm just wondering about their sources. Do you just never question an article's sources?

 

You're clueless and have no earthly idea what due process means. And this isn't a trial of any kind.

You're just looking for something to cry about even if it's completely made up nonsense.

 

.

IOW, you prefer "Witch Hunt" to Show Trial

More silly ad hominem personal attacks instead of substantive rebuttal.
Is it your position that a fair hearing is only required for criminal trials?

“On the other hand, the number of nonregulatory areas in which the Court has insisted on hearings has mushroomed; in- deed, we have witnessed a greater expansion of procedural due process in the last five years than in the entire period since ratification of the Constitution. Understandably, the first stir- rings were in reaction to the outrages stemming from the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy.”
PENN LAW REVIEW, “SOME KIND OF HEARING”, HENRY J. FRIENDLY,
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/c...sredir=1&article=5317&context=penn_law_review