Australian Politics Forum - surely not even the fanboys can defend this...

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #60 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:09pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

Yes, believe in your dreams......for within them they are true to you......

says the guy dreaming that trump will make a good president despite all the evidence to date being to the contrary Grin

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #61 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:12pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?...

sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read.

Are you seriously going to pretend the Emoluments Clause doesn't exist?

Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!!

what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument?

if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk

In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses.

The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence.

If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty.

No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict.

The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case.

So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech.

That Simple.

That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #62 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:22pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?...

sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read.

Are you seriously going to pretend the Emoluments Clause doesn't exist?

Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!!

what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument?

if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk

In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses.

The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence.

If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty.

No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict.

The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case.

So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech.

That Simple.

That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

Try yelling 'fire' in a cinema or 'hijack' in a plane and see how your 'freedom of speech' argument works.

imbecile.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11876
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #63 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:12pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Ahhh, so when you said that he broke the law, that wasn't exactly true now was it?...

sure it was ... according to several constitutional lawyers who've commented in articles I've read.

Are you seriously going to pretend the Emoluments Clause doesn't exist?

Present that in court.....your ass is flying out the door & the last thing you would hear from outside would be the judge saying ..... Next!!

what do you think he'd say if you presented your 'right to free speech' argument?

if your answer is nothing, then you're right, he wouldn't say anything ... he wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to talk

In America all the burden of proof is with the prosecution who is armed only with the testimony of the accusers & witnesses.

The defendant....the accused, has the Constitutional Right not to have to answer to anything....offer no proof of innocence.

If then I were defending DJT on a criminal matter (Impeachment is a criminal matter), the judge would not ask for any defense, ask for any argument whatsoever, he would simply ask how does the accused plead.....& unless the defendant was pleading to guilty, he would plead not guilty.

No need to do anything otherwise.....the prosecution needs to then prove their entire case, & when done, if the defendant declines to present personal testimony, the judge would have to defer to the jury for a verdict.

The only time the defense would need do anything is if, approved by the defendant, the attorney for the defense would proceed to systematically tear apart prosecution witnesses & the prosecutor's case.

So to simply answer your question, I would present no argument, within my tearing apart witnesses, if it was decided to be beneficial to the defense, I would get stipulations that the First Amendment exists, & that it guarantees All American Citizens the Freedom of Speech.

That Simple.

That stipulation would not be an argument, it would be a testimony to fact, not by my client, but by witnesses for the prosecution.....very powerful, & very safe.

you really really dont know a thing about law other than what you can google. That post is largely hypothetical nonsense.

Really......what is hypothetical outside of the simple example I portrayed?

I'm not a lawyer, & I represent no one in any court of law.

The legal issues & procedures within that example are firmly entrenched in the American legal system...

Fact: A defendant is never required to testify at trial in any Criminal Prosecution, or required to answerer any question outside of how he/she pleads.....innocent or guilty....... & only when asked by a Judge prior to any trial.

The same holds true in interrogations by law enforcement prior to any potential charge. They can refuse to answer any & all questions. Read the 9^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Fact: The prosecution (the State) has the total & complete burden of proof.

Fact: A defendant never has to prove his/her innocence in any Criminal Prosecution.

Fact: A Judge presides over a Criminal Trial, not to determine guilt or innocence, that is the jury's charge, but to ensure the defendant (not the prosecution) gets a fair & unbiased trial according to the law.

I dare you to prove any of the preceding Facts incorrect

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:49pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #64 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:56pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx... Wink

[/i][/font][/size]

Thats about the silliest thing I've heard all day - and thats something because I've been dealing with freediver's inane circus act too.

Do you think the President has "freedom" to say leak state secrets to the Russians? give out the nuclear codes? You really didn't put too much thought into that panther.

But as to the specific topic, all government employees, which includes the President, have statutary limitations on their speech - including the previously mentioned prohibition of giving the appearance of either endorsing or sanctioning "the activities of a private party".

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: surely not even the fanboys can defend this...
Reply #65 - Feb 10^th, 2017 at 7:17pm

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:40pm: