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.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
    I’m sure they will. The evidence is overwhelming
    Saying "overwhelming" enough times doesn't necessarily make something overwhelming.

    for the majority of the house,
    On an incredibly partisan basis, the ONLY bipartisanship being Democrats voting against...

    the legal community and roughly half the population.
    Remember, Nancy had insisted it had to be VERY bipartisan with OVERWHELMING public support. "Half" isn't overwhelming.

    However it’s also no secret that more evidence is available that may or may not convince others.
    And, had the House developed this "more evidence", perhaps the House's vote would have been far less partisan, and public support would have been more than merely "half". But they were in SUCH A HURRY.... to then sit on the AoI for a month.

    The only thing preventing the senate from hearing more evidence seems to be vindictiveness despite the polls showing 70% of the population wanting to hear it.
    Vindictiveness? Isn't that rather presumptuous? You mean the Senate is being extremely partisan just like the House? Was the House, therefore, "vindictive"?
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-23-2020, 08:29 PM.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Whoops... Democrats may have stepped in it. As part of the arguments today, House manager Sylvia Garcia introduced into evidence the actions of both Joe and Hunter, saying that neither of them did anything wrong, and therefore any request by President Trump to have them investigated was illegitimate. This means that the Biden's are now fair game if the defense wants to call them as witnesses to counter the prosecution's claims.

      https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-senate-trial/
      Yeah, it's always fun when one side accidentally enters something into testimony that the other side otherwise would not be able to counter.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Saying "overwhelming" enough times doesn't necessarily make something overwhelming.



        On an incredibly partisan basis, the ONLY bipartisanship being Democrats voting against...



        Remember, Nancy had insisted it had to be VERY bipartisan with OVERWHELMING public support. "Half" isn't overwhelming.



        And, had the House developed this "more evidence", perhaps the House's vote would have been far less partisan, and public support would have been more than merely "half". But they were in SUCH A HURRY.... to then sit on the AoI for a month.



        Vindictiveness? Isn't that rather presumptuous? You mean the Senate is being extremely partisan just like the House? Was the House, therefore, "vindictive"?
        The evidence is overwhelming for legal purposes.

        https://medium.com/@legalscholarsoni...s-6c18b5b6d116

        Link is a letter by legal scholars stating words to that effect with numerous signatures. There was less evidence in US v Shabani https://casetext.com/case/us-v-shabani which resulted in a criminal conviction.

        Comment


        • It's not about the quantity of evidence, it's about the quality, and hearsay and office rumors do not a compelling case make.
          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 Watermelon View Post
            The evidence is overwhelming for legal purposes.

            https://medium.com/@legalscholarsoni...s-6c18b5b6d116

            Link is a letter by legal scholars stating words to that effect with numerous signatures. There was less evidence in US v Shabani https://casetext.com/case/us-v-shabani which resulted in a criminal conviction.
            You realize, don't you, that this "overwhelming evidence" has to convince the Republicans in the Senate, yes?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              It's not about the quantity of evidence, it's about the quality, and hearsay and office rumors do not a compelling case make.
              You didn't even watch the trial did you, MM? The evidence was overwhelming, and everyone in that Senate knows it. I suspect you know it as well, which makes you complicit with the treasonous Trump. Hopefully you're just dumb as a rock, but I don't think that's it, is it?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                You realize, don't you, that this "overwhelming evidence" has to convince the Republicans in the Senate, yes?
                What is it you're trying to say about these Republican Senators, CP?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You realize, don't you, that this "overwhelming evidence" has to convince the Republicans in the Senate, yes?
                  No it doesn't. It has to convince people like you so that the republican senators will not alienate Trump supporters at the ballot box and lose their seat.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    You realize, don't you, that this "overwhelming evidence" has to convince the Republicans in the Senate, yes?
                    Well ‘overwhelming evidence’ is based on the legal civil standard. Many judges have come out and said they have had criminal convictions on less compelling evidence than what the house presented so stating that there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ is clearly not an overstatement. Common law predominantly has an adversarial system of law which is basically which sides story do you believe.

                    The two stories are the only options one can choose from. Based on the evidence presented which story is more credible? That’s the legal standard. Then the required standard of proof asks how much is one story more credible than the other? Lowest is being just slightly more credible while the highest is so credible that the other story is extremely unlikely.

                    Whether the legal standard convinces senate republicans or not is another matter.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      You didn't even watch the trial did you, MM? The evidence was overwhelming, and everyone in that Senate knows it. I suspect you know it as well, which makes you complicit with the treasonous Trump. Hopefully you're just dumb as a rock, but I don't think that's it, is it?
                      This coming from someone still deep in the throes of the terminally discredited collusion delusion.

                      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)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • I like how all these liberals are prepared to declare Trump guilty without even hearing what the defense has to say first. As King Solomon said, "One man's story seems convincing, until another man challenges it."

                        Remember, the President's counsel was barred from participating in the impeachment inquiry, so their testimony to the Senate will be the first time any of these allegations will be formally and comprehensively rebutted. Jay Sekulow says that their response will have two parts: 1) they will challenge the validity of the impeachment inquiry; 2) they will present a positive case for the President's innocence.
                        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 JimL View Post
                          What is it you're trying to say about these Republican Senators, CP?
                          Same thing I've been saying all along, Jim - that this is an entirely POLITICAL process, with the Dems foisting an entirely PARTISAN prosecution, and nobody should be surprised that the Republicans respond along PARTISAN lines, as well.

                          I don't know why that's so hard for you to grasp.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            No it doesn't.
                            Yes, it actually does. There will be no removal from office without REPUBLICANS being convinced.

                            It has to convince people like you so that the republican senators will not alienate Trump supporters at the ballot box and lose their seat.
                            Wow, you mean... this is POLITICAL???? Like I've been saying all along?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              Well ‘overwhelming evidence’ is based on the legal civil standard. Many judges have come out and said they have had criminal convictions on less compelling evidence than what the house presented so stating that there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ is clearly not an overstatement. Common law predominantly has an adversarial system of law which is basically which sides story do you believe.
                              So, "many judges" have expressed opinions. Stop the presses - CASE CLOSED!

                              The two stories are the only options one can choose from. Based on the evidence presented which story is more credible? That’s the legal standard. Then the required standard of proof asks how much is one story more credible than the other? Lowest is being just slightly more credible while the highest is so credible that the other story is extremely unlikely.
                              You realize that only ONE SIDE (the prosecution) has presented a case, right? In ANY trial, judgment is withheld til all the facts are in.

                              Whether the legal standard convinces senate republicans or not is another matter.
                              For the third time this morning - this is not a LEGAL process, this is a POLITICAL one, and it began with an entirely PARTISAN prosecution, with even some Democrats providing the only BIPARTISANSHIP by saying no.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Far too many here are in the mold of Carroll's Queen of Hearts expressing the "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards." mentality.

                                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)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                293 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X