Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » A motormouth lawyer argues a position. Do you agree with it?
RosieG

A motormouth lawyer argues a position. Do you agree with it?

That "a sitting president cannot be prosecuted even if he shoots someone." Really? Just injured not murdered? What if the shot hits the spine and paralyzes the victim? What if the shot kills the target so the prez is now a MURDERER?  A president is IMMUNE from being held accountable for his actions while he is the president is what the core of the argument is.

The Constitution DOES NOT STATE THAT.

DESPERATION surely is the "reasoning" behind that absurd statement. Or the gamble that since people have already accepted the motormouth's obscene corrupt criminal evildoing what's maiming someone for life or murdering someone gonna matter?

Motormouth BRAGGED that he could shoot someone and would not lose a vote. You included? Why is that exactly? That whatever he does is automatically okay with you no matter what? What if he rapes your daughter? That okay with you too?

Posted - October 24, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    This MOTORMOUTH thinks he is WEIGHTY AND RELEVANT...

    Does he forget who hired him?   And he is not that busy otherwise? 
      October 24, 2019 9:39 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Why the American Bar Association doesn't boot them and pull their licenses I have no idea! Thank you for your reply Sharon!
      October 24, 2019 1:24 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    I fast forwarded Rachel, Lawrence, and Brian last night after I had taped; but if I recall correctly, Rachel suggested that since Trumpty Dumpty seems to now admit that he does commit crimes that the only way that a lawyer can defend him is to argue to that logical absurdity.



      October 24, 2019 1:04 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I see you are a fan of the same folks I yam and I tape 'em too so I can fast forward through the yuck of commercials.. No surprise at all. The thing is tom what kind of homo saps support believe embrace logical absurdity?  I know you know the question is rhetorical. Sheesh!  Thank you for your reply! :)
      October 24, 2019 1:27 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    The primary use of logical absurdity is to prove that someone's syllogistic conclusion is wrong because one of that person's premises is inaccurate.
      October 24, 2019 5:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    All well and good tom but how do you convince anyone that a premise is accurate or inaccurate?  How do you convince anyone of anything? Some folks are resistant to logic and truth when it inconveniences their beliefs. So they simply don't buy any of it.

    If A = B
    and B=C
    A=C

    They will insist that A does not equal B even though you can PROVE it. They have to cooperate and not fight against it which they will never do because it attacks their necessary beliefs and nothing will cause them to give that up. Not truth. Not logic. Not nuttin'.. Lost cause. Thank you for your reply! :)
      October 25, 2019 3:27 AM MDT
    1