Originally posted by rogue06
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 Watermelon View PostIf the person who made the statement is also testifying then yes it’s not hearsay but useless nonetheless since the original maker of the statement is testifying anyway.
You claimed that Bob could testify about anything Billy had previously told him which isn’t true. Bob could do that if Billy was testifying but that means that statement would have virtually zero probative value and if Billy is the defendant then he cant be compelled to testify which would then make it hearsay.
At least you’d now agree that Sondland testifying that Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo would be inadmissible as hearsay.
The "Presumption of Innocence" is one of the center pieces of U.S. Law we've been through this before with Tazz and he still does not get it. You seem to just Ignore it exist or is even relevant, but It's not. In the U.S. the Prosecution need to prove Guilt the Defendant only needs to either dispute the evidence, or show that there is a legitimate motive for the act.
In the case of Trump asking for an investigation of the Bidens, the legitimate reason to ask was that there was plenty of Probable Cause for an investigation, "Presumption of Innocence" in the U.S. says that we must presume that the legitimate motive was the accrual motive, unless you can prove "beyond a resalable doubt" that the motive was because Uncle Joe was Running for President. The fact that Uncle Joe was running for President in itself is irrelevant on it own, because there is a legitimate motive to ask, over rides any assumption of an ulterior motive.
I have still not seen any actual evidence to prove Trump motive was anything other then legitimate.
I have also not seen any actual evidence that Trump Bribed, Extorted, or even demanded a Quid Pro Quo.
Under "Presumption of Innocence" the Defendant does not have to prove his Innocence, the Prosecution needs to Prove Guilt, Without valid evidence to prove Guilt, Innocence is the default."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDo Australian courts not presume innocence?
Well, it certainly explains the disconnect. I kept thinking maybe he was just a bad lawyer, but perhaps he's a good one in Australia."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
73 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
391 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment