Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (115858)	3/26/2019 6:49:29 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 362593

I would, personally, but if the Constitution has a more stringent requirement I would recognize there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. The point I was trying to make is that he would still be a traitor, convicted or not. As would the boyfriend-stealing sister. Because the legal system and common usage are two different things. Each is valid. That there is a legal definition for something doesn't mean that we can't use common words commonly. The reason I make that point is that, just because DOJ won't pursue an indictment doesn't mean that people can't legitimately say that Trump obstructed in the common usage of the word. If they do, they are not liars or crazy or evil or whatever. They may just be using the term commonly rather than with legal precision. People could also legitimately say the campaign colluded even though the events did not add up to the standard of a conspiracy because they did colludish things, as commonly understood. Something new that I'm not familiar with may come up... We know that there is some evidence of obstruction in the Mueller report that is not public because Barr said so. May not be anything much but there is at least one known unknown. As to Trump, I find it inconceivable that any of the claims against him should be upheld as worthy of impeachment. What's worthy is up to Nancy's bunch. I can't find value in more intangible standards We all have our own moral and operational standards and we utilize them whenever we vote. Some of them make sense, some not so much. Either way, they are there and people are entitled to do their own thing in the voting booth. If your only standard is whether the candidate is a criminal or not and virtually all are not, how else do you choose? That's rhetorical.