Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Impeachment Trial
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMore than one person has been convicted because of a bloody fingerprint.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMore than one person has been convicted because of a bloody fingerprint."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe President only said no "qiud pro quo" after hearing that his "quid pro quo" scheme was uncovered. He wasn't asked by Sondland on that phone call what he wanted in return for military aid, he was simply asked what he wanted Zelensky to do. He got caught, he knew it, and so denied it without even being asked about it. Very obvious acknowledgement of being caught. You didn't expect that he would admit to a quid pro quo, did you? He didn't even admit to what it was he wanted Zelensky to do in that call, because we know now that what he wanted Zelensky to do was to go on CNN and announce investigations into the Bidens.
First JimL you have not provided any real evidence that there was a "quid pro quo".
You are assuming as to the motive of the president when he talked to Sondland. Hard evidence not assumption. Assumptions are not allowed as evidence in a real court.
The Ukrainians who are supposed to be the victims said there was no "quid pro quo", when the victim says they where not victimized no crime exist. (Since this is not a domestic abuse case Watermelon's example does not apply.
No military aid was with held that was given in the form of anti tank missiles, What was withheld was Money that was to be appropriated for the next quarter, the Ukrainians couldn't even spend it for a while after it was approved.
Thank you for admitting that Trump did not ask for a "quid pro quo" on the phone call (Shifty lied about that in his opening). And Zelensky said there was no "quid pro quo" no victim no crime. So other then the call (Which disproves your case and proves ours) what real evidence do you have JimL? Citations please no more speculation no more assumption.
Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIt was all based on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-hand hearsay except for Gordon Sondland who is the only witness to talk directly to the President, and he said that Trump was "crystal clear" that he didn't want any quid pro quo. This is confirmed by a contemporaneous text message from Sondland to Taylor, and that evidence alone trumps all the office gossip "evidence" presented by the other witnesses.
And I think it's a stretch to say that a single politician breaking with his party qualifies as "bipartisan".Last edited by The Pendragon; 02-25-2020, 05:02 PM."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostSo many inconsistencies.
First JimL you have not provided any real evidence that there was a "quid pro quo".
You are assuming as to the motive of the president when he talked to Sondland. Hard evidence not assumption. Assumptions are not allowed as evidence in a real court.
The Ukrainians who are supposed to be the victims said there was no "quid pro quo", when the victim says they where not victimized no crime exist. (Since this is not a domestic abuse case Watermelon's example does not apply.
No military aid was with held that was given in the form of anti tank missiles, What was withheld was Money that was to be appropriated for the next quarter, the Ukrainians couldn't even spend it for a while after it was approved.
Thank you for admitting that Trump did not ask for a "quid pro quo" on the phone call (Shifty lied about that in his opening). And Zelensky said there was no "quid pro quo" no victim no crime. So other then the call (Which disproves your case and proves ours) what real evidence do you have JimL? Citations please no more speculation no more assumption.
Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true.Last edited by JimL; 02-25-2020, 06:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostLet's put this very simply:
1) Firsthand witness says, "I was told directly by the President himself that he didn't want a quid pro quo."
2) A dozen secondhand witnesses say, "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that the President wanted a quid pro quo."
#1 will win in court every single time no matter how many "witnesses" say the latter.
Number 2 should be - a dozen witnesses testified to having witnessed events that conflict with the presidents statement said to the first witness and support the allegations.
They didn’t testify about hearing from someone that trump wanted a quid pro quo, they testified to events they directly witnessed that supported the allegation that trump wanted a quid pro quo.
It’s like saying one witness testified that the defendant told him that he didn’t do the crime. Then a dozen witnesses testify that they witnessed events that are consistent with the defendant having committed the crime.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostBut that’s not what happened here is it? By the way your 1) is what hearsay actually looks like. The witness is testifying to the truth of statement made by someone else to them - that’s hearsay.
Number 2 should be - a dozen witnesses testified to having witnessed events that conflict with the presidents statement said to the first witness and support the allegations.
They didn’t testify about hearing from someone that trump wanted a quid pro quo, they testified to events they directly witnessed that supported the allegation that trump wanted a quid pro quo.
It’s like saying one witness testified that the defendant told him that he didn’t do the crime. Then a dozen witnesses testify that they witnessed events that are consistent with the defendant having committed the crime.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostSo, Watermelon your adding domestic abuse to the list of crimes under the abuse of power charge. Evidence please! We need citations. This is why abuse of power need to have the crimes of abuses enumerated under the heading of abuse of power for it to have teeth. Abuse of Power is not a crime or wrong doing the crimes listed under it are what matter.
The victims testimony is different from the victim admitting that they where the victim of a crime. I have a brother that was the victim of domestic violence, he declined to press charges and the case was dropped (He basically said that he was not victimized).
Sparko or One Bad Pig can correct me, but I think the only exception to the "Victim saying they are not a victim, no crime or wrong doing" is the victim does not have the mental acuity to understand that they are a victim.
Watermelon, here are the facts what Schiff claimed was a lie, both can be true at the same time. What Shifty Shif said in his opening statement for the Impeachment Inquiry did not match the transcript of the call, this is the definition of telling a falsehood, I.E. Lying. I don't want to try a prove a negative so please if Shifty gave an accurate version of the call please list all the things that Shifty said that match the call. Please give citations.
Shifty had the transcript he did not need to translate it, His version of the call was not a translation it was a very bad Mind reading act.
I used domestic abuse as an example since in most cases it’s one persons word vs another’s so if the victim happens to recant then there is no evidence to prosecute.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThis has been explained over and over again and anyone paying attention knows of the corroborating evidence of a quid pro quo, of the attempt at hiding the scheme from Congress, and the efforts to obstruct the investigation itself. It's a done deal, the biased and unprincipled republican Senate fixed the trial and aquited Trump. It's old news, if you're to naive, or blinded by your bias to see it, that's on you. Move on!
You put out assumption after assumption and call it hard evidence you are worse the Watermelon who uses Probable Cause as evidence.
Neither of you have given us any evidence that holds up in a Court of Law. That might be because you don't have it. I know that Shifty Shiff did not have it. All the witnesses said that they had no first hand information. They never talked to Trump about his motives, Only one said that he ask Trump and Trump said no quid pro quo, You JimL excuse that as Trump Lying, but you don't present any evidence to prove your assumption.
It is you JimL, Watermelon, and the Shifty Shiff Democrats that are naïve. Shifty Shiff isn't ever smart enough to win in a Kangaroo Court that he rigged himself. You and your group are following behind because Orange Man Bad. Remember you have never given us any real hard evidence, it's time for you to put-up, or shut up and admit that you have no case.
No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little"Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostBy the way your 1) is what hearsay actually looks like. The witness is testifying to the truth of statement made by someone else to them - thatÂ’s hearsay.
Again, I'll ask do you have any hard evidence that will hold up in a Court of Law? As with JimL I need to ask you to put up or shut up and admit you are wrong.
No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little
You and JimL are like the Chickens in song Cluck, Cluck, Cluck. Just clucking around making no since."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
I thought I'd explain why I think that hard evidence is important.
Simply Put the evidence needs to be strong enough to get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal, this is a high bar to make. I'll put it this way, for a normal criminal trial the prosecution needs to convince the jury of guilt "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". In my opinion in an impeachment trial that is raised to "Beyond a Shadow of Doubt". But lets just stay with "Reasonable Doubt". Hearsay is not evidence because it produces doubt as to its accuracy. And as with Shifty Shiff if its all you have reasonable doubt is easy to prove by giving alternate explanations to the hearsay, also since its not aloud in a Court of law there was no evidence for the prosecution to use."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostAgain nice try, what Sondland was testifying about what he was told "First Hand", Hearsay is the other witnesses saying that they heard for someone that Trump said. In other words the witnesses that are once, twice, or three or four times removed from the conversation. In other words they where not there to hear the actual conversation and had to hear it form someone else.
Again, I'll ask do you have any hard evidence that will hold up in a Court of Law? As with JimL I need to ask you to put up or shut up and admit you are wrong.
No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little
You and JimL are like the Chickens in song Cluck, Cluck, Cluck. Just clucking around making no since.
Someone using another persons statement to prove the truth of that statement is the definition of hearsay. Im a lawyer myself and your perception of how the courts work is detached from reality.
Again I will state that the witness testimonies are evidence that would be admissible in court, the fact that you and other trump supporters don’t accept it doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.
Reading what you claim the witnesses testified about makes it clear that you haven’t understood or heard the evidence they provided. You can either read their testimonies again or the summary in the house report and try again. Dismissing it all as third or fourth hand hearsay is being just plain lazy or ignorant and most importantly, not true. That’s why so many legal scholars and lawyers rightfully claimed that the evidence was overwhelming and why many republican senators reluctantly conceded that Trump did the wrong thing.
Sticking your head in the sand and being oblivious to the evidence won’t make it go away.
Using your standard of evidence on Hillary or Schiff or the Bidens would mean there’s absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by any of them.
Rules of evidence is rather complex and it’s not uncommon for evidence to be admitted or not based on how it’s argued. Having said that, it’s not difficult to argue the relevance for any of the witnesses that have testified if this had been a trial.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostI thought I'd explain why I think that hard evidence is important.
Simply Put the evidence needs to be strong enough to get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal, this is a high bar to make. I'll put it this way, for a normal criminal trial the prosecution needs to convince the jury of guilt "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". In my opinion in an impeachment trial that is raised to "Beyond a Shadow of Doubt". But lets just stay with "Reasonable Doubt". Hearsay is not evidence because it produces doubt as to its accuracy. And as with Shifty Shiff if its all you have reasonable doubt is easy to prove by giving alternate explanations to the hearsay, also since its not aloud in a Court of law there was no evidence for the prosecution to use.
What do you think ‘reasonable doubt’ means? And how would you apply it to a set of facts in a case?
Comment
-
Trump loves Modi for his hatred of Muslims.
Rep. André Carson, the congressman for Indiana's 7th congressional district and one of only three Muslims in Congress, said that Modi and Trump shared an agenda, and would most likely be ignoring human rights issues on the trip.
"Unfortunately, the records of Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi make it clear this will likely not be the case. Both are actively working to re-shape the diverse nations they lead to fit narrow ideas of patriotism and citizenship – to the detriment of historically disadvantaged communities," Carson told ABC News. "One of many examples of these detrimental actions is Mr. Trump's Muslim bans."
"Sadly, I expect this visit will reaffirm those close-minded views for both men," he added.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment