The Impeachment Trial

[Watermelon]

It 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".

Unfortunately that’s not how it works. Your mistake is in thinking that evidence is only relevant if it’s directly from Trump. Anything that’s related to the allegation and can affect its overall probability is relevant evidence. You can consider that if the allegation is true, then what would support this? If Trump really did condition the aid on these public announcements then how did he do it? How was it set up? Who was involved etc? Evidence supporting an answer to any of these type of questions are relevant.

Example: Maria Yovanovitch was criticized for not being relevant to the proceedings. She testified about a baseless smear campaign directed towards her by Giuliani and about her subsequent abrupt dismissal leading to the ‘three amigos’ entrance.

Why it’s relevant - while the allegation is about the withholding of aid for political benefit which all happened after she left, her testimony is about events leading up to it. Her testimony supports the notion that Trump and Giuliani had to scramble after the Ukrainian election to establish new relationships with the incoming administration for the overall purpose of carrying out the allegation.

Her testimony alone proves nothing of course, but it shifts the probability in favor of the prosecution as much or as little as the fact finder values it alongside all the other evidence presented. It’s not based on hearsay or opinion but direct testimony of circumstances relevant to the allegation i.e circumstantial evidence.

Now go to testimony of Sondland who was one of the three amigos. Sondland testified to being sent to Ukraine by Trump with the seemingly sole purpose of meeting with Ukrainian officials and communicating to them the need to announce investigations into Burisma and Crowdstrike for a White House visit and, later, the 400 million in aid. His testimony also included the fact that he had frequent interactions with Trump on a direct line and that Trump had told him ‘no quid pro quo’ when asked what he wanted.

Again this is evidence that’s neither hearsay or opinion but relevant since it shows that the ‘three amigos’ had been sent to Ukraine directly by Trump and the only thing they did was to try and get the new Ukrainian administration to announce the investigations.

And again Sondlands testimony increases the probability of the allegation and is consistent with other testimonies.

That’s how circumstantial cases work, each piece of evidence on its own may have a reasonable alternative explanation but each additional circumstantial evidence makes it that much harder to fit under a lie so ideally the truth eventually becomes the only reasonable explanation that accounts for all the evidence.

[Mountain Man]

Unfortunately that’s not how it works. Your mistake is in thinking that evidence is only relevant if it’s directly from Trump. Anything that’s related to the allegation and can affect its overall probability is relevant evidence. You can consider that if the allegation is true, then what would support this? If Trump really did condition the aid on these public announcements then how did he do it? How was it set up? Who was involved etc? Evidence supporting an answer to any of these type of questions are relevant.

This sounds suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent". You can't assume the defendant is guilty and then work backwards to see if you can make the evidence fit. As Sherlock Holmes once said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sondland said that he was acting on a presumption which turned out to be false and that, in fact, Trump did not want a quid pro quo. The latter fact can be proven apart from Sondland's testimony based on a text message he sent to Ambassador Taylor at the time. No amount of supposed "circumstantial evidence" based on a false presumption can overcome a direct contemporaneous statement from the defendant that refutes the entire case.

[Watermelon]

Quick Note to Tazz, JimL, and Watermelon, You need to over come the biggest evidence for the Defense of Trump. The victim (Ukraine) has said that there was no collusion and that they where not aware of any conditions put on them to receive the money.

You can't go to court and accuse someone of extortion if the victim says that they are not being extorted, even if you believe that they are lying. The defense calls the victim the victim says there's no crime and the case is thrown out of court. Simple win for the defense.

If the prosecution insists that the victim is pressured into committing perjury, then the prosecution has proven that their star witness in a perjurer and can't be trusted in anything that they say. again no victim no crime, no wrong doing, again thrown out of court.

Any way you look at it without a victim no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion, just the stupid ramblings of Those who dislike the way Trump does things. This is why Shifty Shift had to make up what was said on the call at the start of Impeachment Hearings. If he said what he did in court he would get reprimanded by the Judge rightfully so, the Jury would find it hard to be leave anything he said after that and the trial would be over. So with that in mind who in the senate has the stronger case for their vote those who see that the prosecution lied from the start (Republicans) or those that will do anything the prosecutors because they are the same party (Democrats).

No that’s just wrong. A crime doesn’t require the victim to agree. The victims testimony is another piece of evidence to be weighed against any conflicting evidence. This is fairly common in domestic abuse cases like Trump and the Republican Party.

Adam Schiff said that his reading was the ‘essence’ of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the ‘essence’ was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. That’s not a lie, it’s a claim.

[Mountain Man]

Adam Schiff said that his reading was the ‘essence’ of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the ‘essence’ was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. That’s not a lie, it’s a claim.

"Essence". Right.

[Watermelon]

This sounds suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent". You can't assume the defendant is guilty and then work backwards to see if you can make the evidence fit. As Sherlock Holmes once said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sondland said that he was acting on a presumption which turned out to be false and that, in fact, Trump did not want a quid pro quo. The latter fact can be proven apart from Sondland's testimony based on a text message he sent to Ambassador Taylor at the time. No amount of supposed "circumstantial evidence" based on a false presumption can overcome a direct contemporaneous statement from the defendant that refutes the entire case.

It’s not working backwards, its considering if a piece of evidence fits the allegations. So things like:
- withholding aid discreetly
- providing no explanation of the freeze to those that need to know
- establishing a handpicked team in Ukraine to act outside diplomatic norms and personnel

always start with relevant facts and see if they are consistent with the allegations.


What does this direct contemporaneous statement from the defendant prove?

Here’s the circumstantial evidence from Sondlands testimony that I remember:

- White House visit was conditioned on announcements. Email shows Mulvaney directed and Pompeo knew.
- Sondland sent to Ukraine by Trump
- worked on trying to get announcements in Ukraine
- told Ukraine aid was conditioned also

These are events that happened. The fact that they happened support the allegations. If these situation happened some other way like if official diplomatic channels had been used instead then it wouldnt have supported the allegation.

[Mountain Man]

It’s not working backwards, its considering if a piece of evidence fits the allegations.

You can make any evidence "fit" if you're sufficiently determined to do so. However, if a piece of evidence reasonably lends itself to multiple interpretations, "innocent until proven guilty" demands that you must necessarily accept the interpretation that supports the defendant's innocence.

Here’s the circumstantial evidence from Sondlands testimony that I remember...

What you are apparently determined not to remember is that Sondland openly admitted that he was acting entirely on his own presumptions, and when he asked the President for clarification, was told in terms that he described as "crystal clear" that Trump wanted no quid pro quo.

[Mountain Man]

Let'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.

[JimL]

Let'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.

The 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.

[Mountain Man]

The President only said no "qiud pro quo" after hearing that his "quid pro quo" scheme was uncovered.

This is nothing but a begged question because there is no evidence that there was ever a "quid pro quo scheme" in the first place.

[The Pendragon]

No thatÂ’s just wrong. A crime doesnÂ’t require the victim to agree. The victims testimony is another piece of evidence to be weighed against any conflicting evidence. This is fairly common in domestic abuse cases like Trump and the Republican Party.

So, 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.

Adam Schiff said that his reading was the ‘essence’ of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the ‘essence’ was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. That’s not a lie, it’s a claim.

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.

[Mountain Man]

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.

In some states, if someone calls the police to report domestic violence, the police are required by law to press charges even if the victim declines.

[rogue06]

Unfortunately that’s not how it works. Your mistake is in thinking that evidence is only relevant if it’s directly from Trump. Anything that’s related to the allegation and can affect its overall probability is relevant evidence. You can consider that if the allegation is true, then what would support this? If Trump really did condition the aid on these public announcements then how did he do it? How was it set up? Who was involved etc? Evidence supporting an answer to any of these type of questions are relevant.

You are laboring under the false impression that water cooler gossip is somehow legitimate evidence. It isn't. That is why the legal system doesn't accept hearsay except under extraordinary circumstances and I hate to break it to you but simply hating Trump just doesn't qualify. And this is especially true here where most of the witnesses sound like the old REO Speedwagon song and are several steps removed

00000000000000ab000-00aaax.jpg

[rogue06]

No that’s just wrong. A crime doesn’t require the victim to agree. The victims testimony is another piece of evidence to be weighed against any conflicting evidence. This is fairly common in domestic abuse cases like Trump and the Republican Party.

Adam Schiff said that his reading was the ‘essence’ of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the ‘essence’ was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. That’s not a lie, it’s a claim.

"Essence" huh? Is that why he was forced to recharacterize it as a "parody" since it wasn't even remotely accurate?

[The Pendragon]

MM you almost have it right. but to say that what Watermelon just gave was evidence is being very generous.

ItÂ’s not working backwards, its considering if a piece of evidence fits the allegations. So things like:
- withholding aid discreetly
- providing no explanation of the freeze to those that need to know
- establishing a handpicked team in Ukraine to act outside diplomatic norms and personnel

Watermelon, I've warned you be for that you need actual evidence what you have just listed are all Probable Cause and not excepted in a court of law, Please stick to actual evidence NOT Hear say, Assunptions, or Probable Cause.

always start with relevant facts and see if they are consistent with the allegations.

This point would hold up better if the first "Fact" (Actually Probable Cause) was basically the allegations. thank you for proving MM's case. makes things easier.

What does this direct contemporaneous statement from the defendant prove?

HereÂ’s the circumstantial evidence from Sondlands testimony that I remember:

Again, Hear Say and Assumptions.

- White House visit was conditioned on announcements. Email shows Mulvaney directed and Pompeo knew.

This came from Sondland, and he testified that no one told him that this was the case that he assumed that this would help.

- Sondland sent to Ukraine by Trump
-worked on trying to get announcements in Ukraine

So.. What does this prove? Trump can send anyone he wants. proves nothing. (Barely rises to the level of Probuble Cause, Not Circumstantial evidence)

-told Ukraine aid was conditioned also

Ukraine said several time that no-one told them that aid was being withheld. How can you talk about conditional aid without talking about withholding it?

Side Note: Sondland's Hotel (His real business) was being boycotted at the request of a Dem Congressman until Sondland change his story and make it look like the alagations of extortion where true, Sondland then amended his closed door testimony. Looks like witness tampering from the Dens to me, just saying.

These are events that happened. The fact that they happened support the allegations. If these situation happened some other way like if official diplomatic channels had been used instead then it wouldnt have supported the allegation.

So you are saying that the State Department sets policy and the President follows it. Wrong assumption Watermelon. All this does is give a weak case for Probable Cause and is not real evidence, what make it weaker is that Lots of Presidents in the past have done the same and not had trouble.

These are only events are only important if you start with the premise that Trump is with holding aid for nefarious motives. In other words again you prove MM's point. you still loss.


Again I'll ask you to give real evidence that would hold up in court. You have a fondness for Probable Cause to prove your case and that is not what holds up in court. You can't just rap it up as circumstantial evidence and pretend its valid evidence.

Also, circumstantial evidence needs real evidence to back it up a case based only on circumstantial evidence will fail in court 99.9% of the time.

No More Pick-a-Little Talk-a-Little Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little

[rogue06]

Also, circumstantial evidence needs real evidence to back it up a case based only on circumstantial evidence will fail in court 99.9% of the time.

No More Pick-a-Little Talk-a-Little Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little

More than one person has been convicted because of a bloody fingerprint.