USA politics, recent events.

[nicebutdim]

I find it concerning that many people seem content with the idea of evidence being faked in the seat of US government and the fact that there appear to be no consequences for such actions.

If anyone was caught doing this in a court they'd find themselves facing quite serious charges, yet the people who did this are quite open about what they've done and seem comfortable that they're beyond reproach.

 

[andyb]

Any comment on the points that clip raises, that is that the Democrat prosecutors doctored tweets and selectively edited speeches to show Trump in a bad light?

Why bother if it is all so clear cut and Trump is literally Hitler?

Why fake things even a little bit?

...and what is not being reported in the media is that the evidence presented to this kangaroo court was faked.

...and even when it was shown by the defense that the evidence was faked 57 senators still voted to impeach.

There is not even a pretense at honour, it is all political games but the stakes are way to high now.

But they didn't doctor tweets that were submitted as evidence GB, Trump's lawyer even says that in the clip. As for selectively editing speeches, well to that I’d say, of course they did, they were the prosecution and I expect the defense selectively edited speeches to show Trump in a good light. This video is basically Trump’s lawyer summing up and if you just listen to that, and not all the evidence, you’ll probably find him not guilty. But you can say that in just about every trial that’s ever taken place.

 

[nicebutdim]

But they didn't doctor tweets that were submitted as evidence GB, Trump's lawyer even says that in the clip. As for selectively editing speeches, well to that I’d say, of course they did, they were the prosecution and I expect the defense selectively edited speeches to show Trump in a good light. This video is basically Trump’s lawyer summing up and if you just listen to that, and not all the evidence, you’ll probably find him not guilty. But you can say that in just about every trial that’s ever taken place.

The tweet had a blue check added to imply it was from a verified account. It could be argued that this is of little relevance, but still constitutes doctoring of evidence.

We also have the issue of a changed date on submitted evidence to give the impression that a comment from 2020 was made in 2021 and that it was therefore was relevant to the hearing, when it bore no relevance whatsoever.

The selected editing is unlikely to have any legal ramifications, but serves to highlight the fact that the 'trial' was farcical, considering it was this 'evidence' on which it was based.

 

[GBDamo]

But they didn't doctor tweets that were submitted as evidence GB, Trump's lawyer even says that in the clip. As for selectively editing speeches, well to that I’d say, of course they did, they were the prosecution and I expect the defense selectively edited speeches to show Trump in a good light. This video is basically Trump’s lawyer summing up and if you just listen to that, and not all the evidence, you’ll probably find him not guilty. But you can say that in just about every trial that’s ever taken place.

It doesn't matter who was presenting the un-edited footage, it is the fact that edited footage was submitted as evidence.

Its a cheep hack journalist trick that usually ends up in a defamation suit.

If the case against Trump was so strong why the need? Why the embelishment?

Its hope over substance and a desire to hear what they want to hear, and this coming from the side that actively encouraged rioting throughout the summer.

 

[Darkwood]

Lets just remember this was not a court trial, that so called 'evidence' would never have been allowed to be submitted if it was and had they tried the prosecution would be up on serious charges which could destroy their own careers.
The reason they did all this was simply to push a narrative of evil Trump which is completely false, this was a media Kangaroo court approach because they already knew they had nothing of a case hence calling witnesses was flipped from a yes to a no vote, they knew pelosi would have been called and that would have been devastating for her as she would have been under oath and have to explain why she blocked troops been called numerous times.
Trump offered 10,000 troops to be present or on standby given the intel of trouble on that day, his offer was declined, this is on record so how do you claim someone is inciting the riot if they offered to ensure it didn't occur?
This has all been played out for the media to continue its barrage of anti trump rhetoric, and no if this was actually a real court case you cannot doctor evidence, or present it in a manner that deliberately takes it out of context, the fact that this was even allowed in this impeachment trial demonstrates how far the left of the USA are willing to pervert justice to try stop Trump from running again. This is the Russia collusion all over again which was made up completely to distract from Hillary's email scandal and that was also shown to be false and he was acquitted likewise then, the claim of it been a distraction for Clinton emails was in a CIA report that recently got declassified, this was not the media or conspiracy making this up.

 

[DPG]

And the foum poll is still running pretty much 50/50 yes/no.

 

[Darkwood]

Given all the negative coverage Trump gets across the world it actually surprises me we are at 50/50 I would have expected more siding towards negative opinions, however if your are in Aussie land the MSM is opposite, Sky Australia actually puts Trump in a positive frame unlike Sky EU .. it goes to show they play a bias to whoever is pulling the strings.