rxb said:

theRealrollforever said:

Come'on dude...I'm not an Enlil cheerleader but it's pretty clear he knows what the fuck he's doing and talking about.

---

because you SAY so?

okay.

---

Enlil said:

Why do I need you to believe it?  You made the claim that someone could induce perjury with a line of questioning, and then when pressed for details, you backpedaled to a position of "who knows?"  I don't have the burden of disproving you.  I simply know, from hundreds of cross-examinations that I've done, that your claim isn't likely true...

---

Enlil said:

Trump could be acquitted, sure.  He could also be convicted without ever seeing the inside of a jail.  If he's elected while charges are pending, they will likely have to stay those cases until he is out of office.  If he's serving time while elected, they'd have to release him so that he can do his job as president.

---

arguement as an appeal to he authority that you are a lawyer... with the assumption you arent lying about being a lawyer... on a drug forum... where people have been known to lie.

i think you should use more facts and less appeals to authority is all...

i feel like i remember you obfuscating the truth on a number of ocasions i dont personally find that trustworthy as far as i know you are just a dude that likes to hide behind a keyboard ... bring some facts or something im just stating my unqualified opinion as an observer.

Enlil said:

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution is my authority.  Any state action that undermines the President's ability to perform his duties will be null.

---

Enlil said:

I didn't say it did.  You quoted my statements about what would happen if trump were elected then you asked me for an authority.  I gave you one.

You made the claim about perjury.  You have the burden of proof on that one.

---

Enlil said:

My years of experience tells me you're incorrect.  That's not an argument or even a counter-argument.  You still have the burden of proving your claim.  If/when you do, then that burden would shift to me to either undermine your proof or offer authority for why you are wrong.  Instead, however, you have chosen to backpedal to a position of "it's just my opinion."

This leaves your claim with zero value.  It therefore requires no rebutting.

---

ballsalsa said:

Did you not already affirm that it could be done just not via the proposed line of questioning?

---

ballsalsa said:

What is the standard?

---

ballsalsa said:

So (3) makes it a pretty tough nut to crack, then, especially with someone as demonstrably haphazard and ignorant as Trumpy.  Seems like his lawyers could almost always just say he's an idiot who doesn't know he's lying.

---

ballsalsa said:

So (3) makes it a pretty tough nut to crack, then, especially with someone as demonstrably haphazard and ignorant as Trumpy.  Seems like his lawyers could almost always just say he's an idiot who doesn't know he's lying.

---

rxb said:

ballsalsa said:

So (3) makes it a pretty tough nut to crack, then, especially with someone as demonstrably haphazard and ignorant as Trumpy.  Seems like his lawyers could almost always just say he's an idiot who doesn't know he's lying.

---

it would be a good argument for them... in many cases.

---

Enlil said:

A trial would publicly expose actual evidence.  His words would come out.  Trump's appeal is that he leaves his base with the impression that he isn't a phony...that he says what he means, etc.  A trial would show that the private side of Trump is nothing like the public side that he portrays.  That's gonna hurt him.  Sure, there will be a whole contingent claiming that this is fake and that is fake, but there will be plenty of people who are crestfallen and disappointed that their god-king isn't what they thought he was.

Getting convicted is almost better for him than being acquitted, too.  Neither will disqualify him from being president.

---