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

Sondland admits quid pro quo

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

  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
    In saying that, you can’t really determine relevance of evidence without knowing the elements that need to be established to prove it.
    Granted - we're looking for motive. Biden is a joke as a candidate but can we establish Trump thought otherwise? That Trump feared Biden? That Trump even cared about 2020 at the time instead of 2016 (2016 being far more likely)? That Trump even cared who the Dem front runner was?

    If we can't establish Trump was concerned about Biden then the whole case collapses - the President has every right to ask another leader to look into a matter of corruption before we send more money. ONLY if Trump acted for personal political gain is there a case.

    So far, no witness has established Trump's motivation - only one could even give direct evidence and that testimony undermined the quid pro quo argument and didn't even mention Biden that I recall.

    It's the kind of case where you need the defendant's attorney to be fresh out of law school and more interested in real estate law than criminal to even have a chance...
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      And they wouldn’t be able to answer that question in court for that reason.
      Welcome to Congressional Hearings!
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        And multiple witnesses testifying to the opposite? One on record - none of the exculpatory witnesses the Republicans requested were granted (pretty sure - won't swear to it).

        Even if I'm mistaken, not a lot better than nothing.
        To be clear, I’m only talking about the fact that they were concerned by the call. It’s inadmissible as it’s an opinion. The fact they have this opinion has no relevance to prove the truth of that opinion.

        So if that opinion has relevance for something else then it could be admissible. It’s unlikely anyway since an objection has to be raised for the call transcript which can only be based on hearsay or relevance. The transcript is a clear hearsay exception under business records so it needs to be objected under relevance. If all that happens then you can support relevance with the fact these people were concerned.

        Which would actually be a giant waste of time since this would take place without a jury either before the hearing or as a voir dire.

        The only other way would be if the witness is questioned on it directly during cross examination and they say that nothing was concerning to them about the call. Then you can scream hostile witness and get cross examination powers and submit any previous testimony from them.

        So some things aren’t worth it I guess. It would be better if a competent lawyer explained it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Granted - we're looking for motive. Biden is a joke as a candidate but can we establish Trump thought otherwise? That Trump feared Biden? That Trump even cared about 2020 at the time instead of 2016 (2016 being far more likely)? That Trump even cared who the Dem front runner was?

          If we can't establish Trump was concerned about Biden then the whole case collapses - the President has every right to ask another leader to look into a matter of corruption before we send more money. ONLY if Trump acted for personal political gain is there a case.

          So far, no witness has established Trump's motivation - only one could even give direct evidence and that testimony undermined the quid pro quo argument and didn't even mention Biden that I recall.

          It's the kind of case where you need the defendant's attorney to be fresh out of law school and more interested in real estate law than criminal to even have a chance...
          I think the evidence strongly supports abuse of power by Trump but how would it be proven?

          Eg.
          To prove larceny you would need to prove each element that defines larceny under your legislation. The elements will be similar in all common law jurisdictions and read something like:
          - property is able to be taken
          - property belongs to someone else
          - taken without owners consent
          - intention to permanently deprive owner of the property.

          If every element is satisfied then the crime of larceny is proved.

          Then you look at case law for tests to satisfy each element like if you want to establish the property belonged to someone then you need to show someone else had physical control of the property.

          If there’s something similar for impeachment the we could get a better idea of what the evidence so far actually means.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            none of the exculpatory witnesses the Republicans requested were granted (pretty sure - won't swear to it).
            Three of the witnesses so far have been Republican-requested ones.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Biden's mental state is deteriorating even more, evident during the debates, and everyone knows this. I don't think the Dems are going to convince anyone that Trump was extorting Ukraine to get him ammo against his political opponent because he felt threatened even though that's been the common MSM narrative.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                To be clear, I’m only talking about the fact that they were concerned by the call. It’s inadmissible as it’s an opinion. The fact they have this opinion has no relevance to prove the truth of that opinion.

                So if that opinion has relevance for something else then it could be admissible. It’s unlikely anyway since an objection has to be raised for the call transcript which can only be based on hearsay or relevance. The transcript is a clear hearsay exception under business records so it needs to be objected under relevance. If all that happens then you can support relevance with the fact these people were concerned.

                Which would actually be a giant waste of time since this would take place without a jury either before the hearing or as a voir dire.

                The only other way would be if the witness is questioned on it directly during cross examination and they say that nothing was concerning to them about the call. Then you can scream hostile witness and get cross examination powers and submit any previous testimony from them.

                So some things aren’t worth it I guess. It would be better if a competent lawyer explained it.
                No, I got that. I was back on the case itself - congressional hearings are often more about show than substance but eventually, you need some substance to hang the case on. In a court room, even if a really clever lawyer shoehorned it in, I don't think it helps enough to be worth the effort.

                But I sat as an alternate on a jury that acquitted a guy who was seen by the home owner in the home and caught fleeing the scene. No earthly idea what trial those folks sat through, and I didn't think the guy's lawyer was that good - so I guess there could be a point...
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  Biden's mental state is deteriorating even more, evident during the debates, and everyone knows this. I don't think the Dems are going to convince anyone that Trump was extorting Ukraine to get him ammo against his political opponent because he felt threatened even though that's been the common MSM narrative.
                  Trump was afraid of Biden trying to sniff his hair, maybe?


                  It bothers me that this has been so insane that they might try that!
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    I think the evidence strongly supports abuse of power by Trump but how would it be proven?

                    Eg.
                    To prove larceny you would need to prove each element that defines larceny under your legislation. The elements will be similar in all common law jurisdictions and read something like:
                    - property is able to be taken
                    - property belongs to someone else
                    - taken without owners consent
                    - intention to permanently deprive owner of the property.

                    If every element is satisfied then the crime of larceny is proved.

                    Then you look at case law for tests to satisfy each element like if you want to establish the property belonged to someone then you need to show someone else had physical control of the property.

                    If there’s something similar for impeachment the we could get a better idea of what the evidence so far actually means.
                    First you'd have to pin down an actual charge (minus the focus group). If we're going with 'abuse of power' we have to show that power was used toward political gain - which runs straight into motive.

                    I did some basic reference stuff here. First post contains the relevant constitutional citations - the Constitution doesn't go into much detail. Abuse of power could fall under high crimes - but it doesn't give us the elements. The vaguery is a double edged sword - it gives flexibility for the unforeseen but no guidance about what high crimes are.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      Biden's mental state is deteriorating even more, evident during the debates, and everyone knows this. I don't think the Dems are going to convince anyone that Trump was extorting Ukraine to get him ammo against his political opponent because he felt threatened even though that's been the common MSM narrative.
                      Well, they aren't going to convince the deplorable Trump base, that's pretty much a given, and because of that, they probably aren't going to move the unprincipled republican Senate to convict unless the not so Trumpy trumpsters and independents turn on them. If the treasonous criminal wannabe dictator is not ousted for his treasonous and criminal behavior by the Senate, then it'll be left up to the American electorate in 2020. If they should elect him again, well then they will get what they deserve for being dumbed down saps.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Well, they aren't going to convince the deplorable Trump base, that's pretty much a given, and because of that, they probably aren't going to move the unprincipled republican Senate to convict unless the not so Trumpy trumpsters and independents turn on them. If the treasonous criminal wannabe dictator is not ousted for his treasonous and criminal behavior by the Senate, then it'll be left up to the American electorate in 2020. If they should elect him again, well then they will get what they deserve for being dumbed down saps.
                        Or because it just takes a person with even a modicum of information about what's going on to use a little common sense and figure out why Biden wasn't a threat to Trump, therefore a stretch to assume Trump was risking all this to look for dirt on Biden specifically for election leverage. If a person with the barest minimum of knowledge can figure that out, I'm sure a senator can.

                        The 2020 election is what your base should have been focused on all along. Instead, you wasted four years of nonsense and delusion, and because of that, I suspect a pretty broad election defeat. Look at the fundraising between the DNC and the GOP. It's like night and day. But I hope for the best for you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          Biden's mental state is deteriorating even more, evident during the debates, and everyone knows this. I don't think the Dems are going to convince anyone that Trump was extorting Ukraine to get him ammo against his political opponent because he felt threatened even though that's been the common MSM narrative.
                          You wish. Biden has been consistently leading the Democrat polls. And it is clearly a major threat for sleazy Trump to have to compete with a decent man as an opponent.
                          “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 Watermelon View Post
                            ... She also said she thinks the highlander tv series was better than the movies so she may have been drunk.
                            She was right. The first movie was better than the series, but the sequels totally ruined the franchise.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              First you'd have to pin down an actual charge (minus the focus group). If we're going with 'abuse of power' we have to show that power was used toward political gain - which runs straight into motive.

                              I did some basic reference stuff here. First post contains the relevant constitutional citations - the Constitution doesn't go into much detail. Abuse of power could fall under high crimes - but it doesn't give us the elements. The vaguery is a double edged sword - it gives flexibility for the unforeseen but no guidance about what high crimes are.
                              And w.r.t. the Constitution, even if you're not a "living documentist," doesn't it matter whether you're more of a "textualist" as opposed to an "original intentist"? The "text" supports Gerry Ford's "whatever Congress says" definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but some of those familiar with the background -- Federalist Papers, and whatever -- say that "maladministration" is NOT impeachable. Would "abuse of power" fall under "maladministration"?
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                                She was right. The first movie was better than the series, but the sequels totally ruined the franchise.
                                Would you say the first three movies were better?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X