Page 113 of 118 FirstFirst ... 1363103111112113114115 ... LastLast
Results 1,121 to 1,130 of 1173

Thread: The Impeachment Trial

  1. #1121
    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
    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 - thatÂ’s hearsay.
    Again 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.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
    -- Arthur C. Clark

  2. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  3. #1122
    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
    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

  4. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  5. #1123
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    442
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by The Pendragon View Post
    Again 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.
    Please get an understanding of what hearsay is before you criticize others. Ask any lawyer whether you could use Sondlands statement that Trump told him he wanted ’no quid pro quo’ as evidence that there was no quid pro quo in court and see what they say.

    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.

  6. #1124
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    442
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by The Pendragon View Post
    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.
    In a criminal trial the jury needs to be unanimous not just 2/3 so why should impeachment be higher? Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest threshold to meet and is due to the severity of the outcome as life or liberty is at stake. Impeachment and removal results in losing ones job, why should the standard be higher?

    What do you think ‘reasonable doubt’ means? And how would you apply it to a set of facts in a case?

  7. #1125
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,907
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    466
    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
    “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
    “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

  8. #1126
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,904
    Amen (Given)
    6285
    Amen (Received)
    7749
    "One of many examples of these detrimental actions is Mr. Trump's Muslim bans."

    What Muslim bans?
    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. #1127
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,223
    Amen (Given)
    8163
    Amen (Received)
    8605
    Quote Originally Posted by firstfloor View Post
    Trump loves Modi for his hatred of Muslims.
    What a truckload of biased garbage...

  10. #1128
    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
    In a criminal trial the jury needs to be unanimous not just 2/3 so why should impeachment be higher? Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest threshold to meet and is due to the severity of the outcome as life or liberty is at stake. Impeachment and removal results in losing ones job, why should the standard be higher?

    What do you think ‘reasonable doubt’ means? And how would you apply it to a set of facts in a case?
    Actually what is a stake with impeachment is the Congress taking power over the Executive Branch in the Government. With the President being subordinate to the Congress if Impeachment was held to a highest standard. That is why the Founders through out the Idea of Impeachment for malfeasance. Maleficence is what most of the State Department witnesses complain about, example Trump sending Sondland over to negotiate with the Ukrainians.

    I apply it to the fact that almost all of the evidence you give is second hand knowledge at best. By the way what are the facts. Other then the Ukrainians saying there was no quid pro quo. And the Transcript of the call that has no quid pro quo which was confined to be accurate according to Shifty's own witness. The rest is supposition none of it is hard evidence. And again you can't produce any real evidence.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
    -- Arthur C. Clark

  11. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  12. #1129
    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
    Please get an understanding of what hearsay is before you criticize others. Ask any lawyer whether you could use Sondlands statement that Trump told him he wanted Â’no quid pro quoÂ’ as evidence that there was no quid pro quo in court and see what they say.

    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 donÂ’t accept it doesnÂ’t mean thereÂ’s no evidence.

    Reading what you claim the witnesses testified about makes it clear that you havenÂ’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. ThatÂ’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 wonÂ’t make it go away.
    I'm no Lawyer but as I said before (listen close) this is different from Hearsay, Sondland was not testifying as to Trumps motive, Sondland was testifying to what Trump told him. It is for the prosecution or defense to prove motive with additional hard evidence. This is first hand information and not hearsay. The difference is subtle but its important as to the evidence. What make Sondland different from the hearsay of the other witnesses is that Sondland is under oath and is presumed to be telling the truth. While the other witnesses where also under oath their sources where not and therefore have no presumption truth from the sorces.

    an example is the whistle blower, all of his testimony was second hand and it was worthless to Shifty because it did not match with the accrual transcript of the call, Although what was leaked bares a striking resemblance to Shifty's opening statement for the Impeachment Inquiry.

    Rogue, One Bad Pig help me out here, if I'm mistaken in my understanding.

    The other witnesses testified as to what some one else told them was said by Trump or what they assumed was said. I stand by my assertion that Sondland had first hand information and the rest had second hand or worst. It is your assumption that Trump did not mean what he said, you have not provided any facts to back up you assumption, I can say the same about the Bidens I have no facts to back up the assumption that there was something nefarious going on, but under your standards on evidence they are guilty as sin, By the way please site where I have ever said the the Bidens did anything wrong or are guilty of anything, I've only said that there is enough probable cause to allow any one to ask Ukraine to look into it, regardless of Uncle Joe running for President, Running fo president does not make him immune from investigation. As you liberals like to say no one is above the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Using your standard of evidence on Hillary or Schiff or the Bidens would mean thereÂ’s absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by any of them.

    Rules of evidence is rather complex and itÂ’s not uncommon for evidence to be admitted or not based on how itÂ’s argued. Having said that, itÂ’s not difficult to argue the relevance for any of the witnesses that have testified if this had been a trial.
    First off stop you false claims that I have said that the Biden's are guilty of any thing. That's as much a lie as Shifty's opening statement for the impeachment hearings.

    As for my allegations about Shifts Opening statement being a lie Shifty himself provides me with my hard evidence, When you compare the opening statement with the transcript of the call they don't match in fact they are like two separate calls. On the surface I can put out two gross misrepresentations.


    Shifty - "I want you to make up dirt on my opponent lots of it"
    The Transcipt - "I heard that there are a lot of bad thing going on around hunter Biden it does not look good to us could you look into it"

    Shifty implied that Trump wanted Ukraine to actively make up things about Biden, while the transcript really has no expectation as to an out come and is asking the Ukrainians to look into something that even the Obama administration thought looked really bad.

    Shift - "Now I want you to really listen, to me because I'm only going to say this 7 more times"
    Transcrpt - "???????????????"

    Shifty either made this up out of whole cloth, or more likely took it from the whistle blowers testimony. Which was again second hand information, and goes to prove why its unreliable not real evidence. this is my evidence as to why we don't trust what Shifty says if he's willing to Lie here at such an important venue as an impeachment trial what s to stop he for lying any time.

    Almost all of what Shifty said in that opening statement where gross misrepresentations as bad as the above statements. May be you should get your head out of the sand and realize the true facts. As was said before so much of what Shifty said was off that when pressed He had to claim it was a "parody". If Shifty wanted us to take the Impeachment seriously, Why would he start it out with a "Parody". And you wonder why we don't take his assertions seriously.

    As for Hilary (You brought her up not any one here) She admitted to destroying evidence when said that she deleted some of her Emails off a sever that was under subpoena to preserve the emails. again like Shifty this is not second hand information or even your version of Hearsay (where she told someone else) we have it from her own mouth.

    So in short I don't need hearsay to prove my case for those three. In the case of Hilary and Shift the my evidence is their own word in front of masses of people. As for the Bidens I never accused them of anything I just asserted that what the Bidens did made it look very much like there was some hanky panty going on and Trump had the right to look into it regardless of Uncle Joes status at the time. Running for president does not make you immune from investigation, If it did what was Crossfire Hurricane all about, Oh yah that had links to Hilary to didn't it, something about paying for false dirt on Trump from a British Spy.

    I've given you strong evidence against the claims against Hilary and Shifty. Where is your strong evidence against Trump. Still waiting!!!

    and again,

    No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little
    Last edited by The Pendragon; 02-26-2020 at 11:30 PM.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
    -- Arthur C. Clark

  13. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  14. #1130
    Department Head
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,337
    Amen (Given)
    20803
    Amen (Received)
    1590
    Since Watermelon, JimL nor Tass can show the evidence the Democrats brought forth that would stand up in a court of law The Pendragon asked for, I call on them to admit that it was the Democrats who perpetrated a sham and care nothing about the Constitution or Rule of Law. Until they show evidence or admit they have been sold a bill of Goods from the Democrats we should move on and admit that the American People have a right to elect whom they want as president and not have elite power hungry folks on the left try and take that right away from them.
    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 02-29-2020 at 09:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

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