The Trump Presidency Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (115844)	3/26/2019 5:30:40 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) of 362611

>> I'll leave you with this hypothetical: the Constitution requires two witnesses to treason for conviction. You are the only witness to a covert meet where you know for sure what happened. You also know that there can be no conviction without another witness. Would you not label the perpetrator a traitor, nonetheless? I would, personally, but if the Constitution has a more stringent requirement I would recognize there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. I, were I in a position to do so, would have the exclusive responsibility to support conviction. No one else, under your hypothetical, would have that option. As to Trump, I find it inconceivable that any of the claims against him should be upheld as worthy of impeachment. Something new that I'm not familiar with may come up, but from what I've seen there isn't a case to be made. I just choose to be less political about it than many on the Left do. I'm not sure where you're coming from politically, but I can't find value in more intangible standards, for reasons I've previously explained.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next