M
Maximus1
Guest
It is a totalitarian hope that you have
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Funny, the ," MAKE HIM AN OFFER HE CAN’T REFUSE," doesn’t have anyone saying ," you have no choice. You have words and circumstances like those found in the transcript. And none of Trump’s own people missed it. Including Sondland. It is absurd to defend with," but he didn’t sign a confession of the crime your honor, that makes him innocent." Absurd!
Sondland’s presumptions are based upon facts, knowledge, reason, and human experience, which are what a judge instructs a juror to employ to determine truth.
The Trump SYCOPHANTS advocate that people suspend facts, reason, knowledge and experience at the door, apply this absurd idea that, he didn’t actually confess the crime did he?"
Sondland’s presumptions are based upon facts, knowledge, reason, and human experience, which are what a judge instructs a juror to employ to determine truth.
The Trump SYCOPHANTS advocate that people suspend facts, reason, knowledge and experience at the door, apply this absurd idea that, he didn’t actually confess the crime did he?"
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Not while Barr is AG. There is no controlling court precedent that says this
So you agree with that “lawyer” who is a congressman that hearsay is better than actual evidence?Hearsay means what to you. Trying cases for 25 years and introduced hearsay at one point in all of them. This hearsay boogyman is a nice scam. I have to admit. Like a fleet of robots saying hearsay
There’s been no vetting for corruption in Ukraine. That’s what Trump was trying to do.Trump’s policy? The vetting for Curruption was complete statutorily in May. Trump acted illegally we found out tonight. And he offered no reason anyway.
It is an interesting position to say a request for investigation of possible corruption is itself illegal. Orwell would be proud.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Let me give a simple example.
In civil law, anything a party says that is " hearsay"( an out of court statement offered to proove the truth of the matter asserted) is admissible by the other party.
Ms X said she did it. Or she yelled," you hurt me."( Excited utterance exception")
They will win your case in my experience. There are many exceptions beyond those two( admission of a party opponent and excited utterance). Statements made in medical records for purposes of diagnosis are exceptions. Doctor writes down what you said, you can admit it.
The workup of a trial is devoted to admission of hearsay.
You likely can’t appreciate millions of people saying," but it’s hearsay" and not really knowing why that matters or not. Looking at you, who are expert, as if you are nuts. The world has become nuts. Your statement about ," hearsay better than evidence," lets me know somehow, someone has placed that idea in your head in the last few weeks.
Hearsay is always talking about evidence. Some admissible and some not. Precedent has established it trustworthy over centuries of caselaw. Which caselaw has been codified into evidence rules.
This not to be confused with first hand knowledge. Or competency of a witness to offer lay opinion.( Basic rule is what you can smell touch taste and see, and had sufficient time to percieved it, you can testify to.
What you cannot do is offer expert opinion till qualified. For example the questions, did Trump commit bribery. It cannot be asked even in a real courthouse. The lay with cannot offer a competent opinion.
Frustrating to see something this important with so much deception
In civil law, anything a party says that is " hearsay"( an out of court statement offered to proove the truth of the matter asserted) is admissible by the other party.
Ms X said she did it. Or she yelled," you hurt me."( Excited utterance exception")
They will win your case in my experience. There are many exceptions beyond those two( admission of a party opponent and excited utterance). Statements made in medical records for purposes of diagnosis are exceptions. Doctor writes down what you said, you can admit it.
The workup of a trial is devoted to admission of hearsay.
You likely can’t appreciate millions of people saying," but it’s hearsay" and not really knowing why that matters or not. Looking at you, who are expert, as if you are nuts. The world has become nuts. Your statement about ," hearsay better than evidence," lets me know somehow, someone has placed that idea in your head in the last few weeks.
Hearsay is always talking about evidence. Some admissible and some not. Precedent has established it trustworthy over centuries of caselaw. Which caselaw has been codified into evidence rules.
This not to be confused with first hand knowledge. Or competency of a witness to offer lay opinion.( Basic rule is what you can smell touch taste and see, and had sufficient time to percieved it, you can testify to.
What you cannot do is offer expert opinion till qualified. For example the questions, did Trump commit bribery. It cannot be asked even in a real courthouse. The lay with cannot offer a competent opinion.
Frustrating to see something this important with so much deception
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Wrong! Last night’s testimony is the department of defense and state department went through a series of investigations that ended in May. Because legally, the legislation giving the money to Ukraine had hurdles before it could be given. Last night all the real actions were testified to. Followed by Trump inexplicably not doing anything while holding the money( an illegal act it turns out)
Another defense removed. Now that you can review the testimony of actual non partisan Defense department experts, you won’t. It isn’t about truth is it?
Another defense removed. Now that you can review the testimony of actual non partisan Defense department experts, you won’t. It isn’t about truth is it?
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
The real investigation took place. The military and other agencies deploy people who do actual work. Then they have meetings where an objective process of actual data is assessed. This happened in May. The money can’t be given until it does.
Then Trump did nothing except BS he was doing something.
What is Orwellian is actual pros vigorously employing objective investigation vs the apparent omnipresent brain approach of Trump that mysteriously happens via faith.
Then Trump did nothing except BS he was doing something.
What is Orwellian is actual pros vigorously employing objective investigation vs the apparent omnipresent brain approach of Trump that mysteriously happens via faith.
The president is the chief executive. He is the one elected. The military and other agencies do not operate independent of the president. He had the final say, not generals or diplomats or bureaucrats.The real investigation took place. The military and other agencies deploy people who do actual work. Then they have meetings where an objective process of actual data is assessed. This happened in May.
The president gets to approve or not the actions of the executive branch. It wasn’t “done in May” unless the President, the chief executive, the commander in chief, the one person in the entire branch that was elected, says so.The money can’t be given until it does.
Then Trump did nothing except BS he was doing something.
Your description of the executive as bureaucrats acting independent of the president is not only anti-constitutional, it is quite dangerous.What is Orwellian is actual pros vigorously employing objective investigation vs the apparent omnipresent brain approach of Trump that mysteriously happens via faith.
M
Maximus1
Guest
The Congress Creates the criteria. They have the power of the purse strings not Trump. The law required that after the vetting by DOD, IN MAY, the president’s job is faithfully execute the law, which he didnt
M
Maximus1
Guest
Defying the law by adding to the criteria of the law beyond what Congress places I the law, is illegal
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Adam Schiff:Sondland admits this is all based on HIS “PRESUMPTION”.
“My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president,’ that there is no evidence of bribery. If he didn’t say, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you, I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this,’ that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid,” Schiff said.
“They also seem to say that, ‘Well, they [Ukraine] got the money. The money may have been conditioned, but they got the money.’ ”
“Yes, they got caught,” Schiff said sharply. “They got caught.”
Last edited:
G
Guinness
Guest
You know what would be evidence of bribery? An actual bribe. You know what isn’t an actual bribe? Placing conditions on the receipt of US aid.“My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president,’ that there is no evidence of bribery.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Exactly! They got caught! And their position is," TRUMP had the right to get away with it…fair and square.
The black marker talking points of Trump that I in the news says it all.
I want nothing
I want nothing
There is no quid pro quo
Was his words to Sondland. It was totally non responsive to what Sondland asked, and was totally responsive to the Whisleblowers complain he had seen earlier that day.
It was fortunate taking a photo of Trump’s notes. It El this argument that," Trump said no quid pro quo." So that settles it.
The black marker talking points of Trump that I in the news says it all.
I want nothing
I want nothing
There is no quid pro quo
Was his words to Sondland. It was totally non responsive to what Sondland asked, and was totally responsive to the Whisleblowers complain he had seen earlier that day.
It was fortunate taking a photo of Trump’s notes. It El this argument that," Trump said no quid pro quo." So that settles it.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Didn’t you get the memo? That bogus argument died last night.
The Congress controls the purse strings. They alone decide conditions on this money. THEY DID! AND THEY WERE fully met in May of this year. They were real, objective, and carried out by the Department of defense.
Trump cannot legally place more restrictions the law does not. Of course the testimony is Trump took no steps at all for freezing the money.
Let me help. Trump acted in violation of his oath and you believe he had a right to get away with it…fair and square
The Congress controls the purse strings. They alone decide conditions on this money. THEY DID! AND THEY WERE fully met in May of this year. They were real, objective, and carried out by the Department of defense.
Trump cannot legally place more restrictions the law does not. Of course the testimony is Trump took no steps at all for freezing the money.
Let me help. Trump acted in violation of his oath and you believe he had a right to get away with it…fair and square
G
Guinness
Guest
I don’t think you really understand how foreign policy works under our Constitution, but you mask it well with your extensive use of ALL CAPSThe Congress controls the purse strings. They alone decide conditions on this money. THEY DID! AND THEY WERE fully met in May of this year. They were real, objective, and carried out by the Department of defense.
Please do me the kindness of telling me where you got this privileged access as to what I believe or don’t believe…Let me help. Trump acted in violation of his oath and you believe he had a right to get away with it…fair and square
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually is has been the same. Trump abused the powers of his office for personal advantage against his politic opponent.It changes daily.
The completion of the vetting is determined by the commander in chief. Congress cannot designate executive authority away from the chief executive to a subordinate.The Congress Creates the criteria. They have the power of the purse strings not Trump. The law required that after the vetting by DOD, IN MAY, the president’s job is faithfully execute the law, which he didnt
By exercising his constitutional authority as chief executive, it cannot be said he is exceeding his authority.Defying the law by adding to the criteria of the law beyond what Congress places I the law, is illegal
G
Guinness
Guest
I think a more obvious case can be made for Biden using the powers of his office for personal financial gain, which apparently doesn’t trouble you…Trump abused the powers of his office for personal advantage against his politic opponent.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.