93d
@mott-the-hoople saidExtrapolate. It’s there in what I wrote.
LOL… you are trying to convict Trump with german laws😂
And, it’s not about laws, it’s about interpretations. And how one term doesn’t exclude meanings of other terms. And how the whole is more than the sum of its parts; and sometimes visa versa.
And the Nuremberg laws are not German laws.
And… God damn. I may as well talk to a bloody lamppost.
93d
@shavixmir saidSo Shav wants to change the def of insurrection to the extent, whatever it takes, to get Trump charged/convicted w insurrection.
Extrapolate. It’s there in what I wrote.
And, it’s not about laws, it’s about interpretations. And how one term doesn’t exclude meanings of other terms. And how the whole is more than the sum of its parts; and sometimes visa versa.
And the Nuremberg laws are not German laws.
And… God damn. I may as well talk to a bloody lamppost.
Everyone sounds like the wisened Suzianne this morning.
93d
@averagejoe1 saidNo. I couldn’t give a fukk if the demented bread-bopper is convicted, shot or made president. How often do I have to repeat this to you?
So Shav wants to change the def of insurrection to the extent, whatever it takes, to get Trump charged/convicted w insurrection.
Everyone sounds like the wisened Suzianne this morning.
And it’s not changing the term.
If a court says you’re guilty of driving a Porche 911, your bedroom has posters of a 911 on it, your duvet is made from 911 seat coverings, you married in a 911 and you called your kids Porche and 911… the court’s not stated you’re a lover of Porche 911s, but it’s found you guilty of it.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142773
93d
@shavixmir saidThey are not US laws either
Extrapolate. It’s there in what I wrote.
And, it’s not about laws, it’s about interpretations. And how one term doesn’t exclude meanings of other terms. And how the whole is more than the sum of its parts; and sometimes visa versa.
And the Nuremberg laws are not German laws.
And… God damn. I may as well talk to a bloody lamppost.
93d
@shavixmir saidYes, the 911 guy would hardly be able tl defend himself.
No. I couldn’t give a fukk if the demented bread-bopper is convicted, shot or made president. How often do I have to repeat this to you?
And it’s not changing the term.
If a court says you’re guilty of driving a Porche 911, your bedroom has posters of a 911 on it, your duvet is made from 911 seat coverings, you married in a 911 and you called your kids Porche and 911… the court’s not stated you’re a lover of Porche 911s, but it’s found you guilty of it.
But Trump can, because no matter how you paint intent, and hints, and curious likenesses, and 'looks like' factors, his actions do not rise to the level of insurrection. (The def thereof).
Why do you think you make more sense than a trained prosecutor, who finds no such evidence? And why will you not answer this question clearly? Everyoone has Suzy Syndrome this morning.
@averagejoe1 saidHistory will note Trump correctly as an insurrectionist and if he does get a second term, it won't be kind to the America that facilitated (allowed and fostered) it. The future will wonder how he managed to get past the 14th Amendment.
So Shav wants to change the def of insurrection to the extent, whatever it takes, to get Trump charged/convicted w insurrection.
Everyone sounds like the wisened Suzianne this morning.
@djj saidUuuuhh, what?
Why Not a May 29th Committee To Investigate the Democrats Insurrection?
https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2022-06-11-why-isnt-there-a-may-29th-committee-holding-hearings/
Could you just keep watching NewsMax 20 hours a day and not bother the rest of us with their moronity?
@shavixmir saidHahahaha.
Extrapolate. It’s there in what I wrote.
And, it’s not about laws, it’s about interpretations. And how one term doesn’t exclude meanings of other terms. And how the whole is more than the sum of its parts; and sometimes visa versa.
And the Nuremberg laws are not German laws.
And… God damn. I may as well talk to a bloody lamppost.
I don't know a single Republican who was an English major. Most of them have a 6th grade vocabulary. That's why they love Trump so much.
@mott-the-hoople saidYes they are:
They are not US laws either
nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trials
President Harry S Truman appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson to be the chief prosecutor representing the United States in the proposed trials for the European Axis powers.
You apparently don't understand what "international law" means.
@shavixmir
The problem if Trump is reelected is the whole world will feel it, pulling out of NATO, letting fukhead Putin have Ukraine then attacking Poland, starting a Euro war which will draw in the US as well, and in the US which I figure you don't care, he could initiate putting thousands or more folks into prison camps because of their religion, Jews, Muslims and even more thousands of babies in cages like he already did but twice as many this time and calling out our military to quell protest gatherings, making Abortion totally illegal and working things around so he keeps being POTUS for the rest of his life. Sound familiar? To say nothing of Putin backed into a military corner evoking the nuclear answer, you would directly feel THAT.
93d
@sonhouse saidCheck to you, Shav. We are all gathering around the poker table.
@shavixmir
The problem if Trump is reelected is the whole world will feel it, pulling out of NATO, letting fukhead Putin have Ukraine then attacking Poland, starting a Euro war which will draw in the US as well, and in the US which I figure you don't care, he could initiate putting thousands or more folks into prison camps because of their religion, Jews, Muslims and even m ...[text shortened]... ing of Putin backed into a military corner evoking the nuclear answer, you would directly feel THAT.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142773
93d
@vivify saidyou apparently dont know what US law is.
Yes they are:
nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trials
President Harry S Truman appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson to be the chief prosecutor representing the United States in the proposed trials for the European Axis powers.
You apparently don't understand what "international law" means.
93d
@suzianne said@shavixmir said:
Uuuuhh, what?
Could you just keep watching NewsMax 20 hours a day and not bother the rest of us with their moronity?
You will notice that the courts do not need to find him guilty of insurrection, only of actions which lead to a situation of insurrection,
Actions, of a mob setting things on fire and trying to storm the capitol (thus preventing government officials from doing their jobs). Does that fall under the definition of insurrection? Another example of the degenerate party double standard. It's OK when we do it.