pafret wrote:
Again, implicit assumption of Trump's guilt without any evidentiary material.
Further assumption, Kabvanaugh will automatically vote in any SC case to protect Trump.
Third assumption, it is presupposed that the Constitution allows Trump to be "sworn In" a euphemism for be questioned under oath with the probability of entrapment and creation of false charges. Constitutional Scholars from left and right have indicated this is not possible under the Constitution.
Fourth assumption, you predicate a monolithic cabal of leftists (and rightists) Supreme Court Justices, who do not vote the Constitutional issues but instead vote strictly party lines. One Supreme (Ginsburg) has gone on record opposing such witch hunts as in the in Kavanaugh's questioning and unverifed accusation of childhood misdeeds. These appointments are for life the assure that party affiliations do not dictate the law of the land. You impugn all SC Justices and essentially say none of them are men or women of honor.
In short, your argument is full of holes and only by leaving one's brain in a drawer can your suppositions be entertained.
Again, implicit assumption of Trump's guilt withou... (
show quote)
First, if it talks like a skunk and smells like a skunk...
Second, Kavanaugh assumption, Yes, I also assume the sun will shine tomorrow, even behind the clouds.
Third, a euphemism, really, how so and please feel free to be direct, there is no euphemism, if there are charges, if he is innocent that will come out, only the guilty fear being sworn in, just as Kavanaugh and NOT Ford. Has Kavanaugh gone before a lie detector test as Ford has done? Again fear.
Tell me in what circumstance was Clinton sworn in over? Who was railroaded then by a majority rule? I'm sure you don't see that whole escapade as an entrapment, correct. How much did the GOP spend on that, the president got a "consensual" sexual act by a real little eager beaver, who put her in the white house, I'd love to know, but she couldn't have been a plant, nah, impossible. The GOP is just too above board, please don't make me laugh. Please don't tell me what is possible or impossible, that door swings to whatever is convenient to whomever at that moment in time.
your quote{You impugn all SC Justices and essentially say none of them are men or women of honor.} Never said that, don't put your lying words in my mouth. This is what the deplorable right always does, state lies as the truth and then pounds them away to mislead the public. You want to ACCUSE me of something then POST my quote from where you're taking the accusation from, I am sick to death of having to prove your lies by digging up my old quotes that have been intentionally misconceived, in order to malign, you are completely transparent sir. Once again YOU have no case and now the typical move to slander the poster with fallacies. If you think that at times judges don't vote within their party lines you are naive, Scalia is a perfect example. Judges are people and fallible.
Childhood misdeeds, really, how far will you go? Maybe someday this little misdeed will happen to your granddaughter or a niece and you can just shrug it off then too.