Page 111 of 118 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1173

Thread: The Impeachment Trial

  1. #1101
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,581
    Amen (Given)
    6195
    Amen (Received)
    7662
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Itís 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Hereís 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.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 02-25-2020 at 06:22 AM.
    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

  2. #1102
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,581
    Amen (Given)
    6195
    Amen (Received)
    7662
    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.
    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

  3. #1103
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,259
    Amen (Given)
    2002
    Amen (Received)
    1616
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    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.

  4. #1104
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,581
    Amen (Given)
    6195
    Amen (Received)
    7662
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    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.
    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

  5. Amen RumTumTugger, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  6. #1105
    tWebber The Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    the State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    111
    Amen (Given)
    73
    Amen (Received)
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Adam Schiff said that his reading was the ¬Ďessence¬í of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the ¬Ďessence¬í was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. That¬ís not a lie, it¬ís 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.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
    -- Arthur C. Clark

  7. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #1106
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,581
    Amen (Given)
    6195
    Amen (Received)
    7662
    Quote Originally Posted by The Pendragon View Post
    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.
    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

  9. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  10. #1107
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,592
    Amen (Given)
    1199
    Amen (Received)
    21071
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Unfortunately thatís not how it works. Your mistake is in thinking that evidence is only relevant if itís directly from Trump. Anything thatís 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



    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  11. Amen RumTumTugger, The Pendragon amen'd this post.
  12. #1108
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,592
    Amen (Given)
    1199
    Amen (Received)
    21071
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    No thatís just wrong. A crime doesnít 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 Ďessenceí of what was said. The same conversation between two equals may not hold the same connotations for two non equal participants so the Ďessenceí was effectively a translation put into context of the allegation. Thatís not a lie, itís a claim.
    "Essence" huh? Is that why he was forced to recharacterize it as a "parody" since it wasn't even remotely accurate?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  13. Amen RumTumTugger, The Pendragon, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  14. #1109
    tWebber The Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    the State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    111
    Amen (Given)
    73
    Amen (Received)
    106
    MM you almost have it right. but to say that what Watermelon just gave was evidence is being very generous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    What does this direct contemporaneous statement from the defendant prove?

    Here’s the circumstantial evidence from Sondlands testimony that I remember:
    Again, Hear Say and Assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    - 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    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
    Last edited by The Pendragon; 02-25-2020 at 10:55 AM.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
    -- Arthur C. Clark

  15. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  16. #1110
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,592
    Amen (Given)
    1199
    Amen (Received)
    21071
    Quote Originally Posted by The Pendragon View Post



    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.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  17. Amen The Pendragon amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •