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

List of Trump's crimes?

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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That's only in a civil trial. In a criminal trial (which impeachment is; "high crimes and misdemeanors", remember?), the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
    Actually no, MM, this is not a criminal trial, it's civil, there is no sentencing for a crime, there is just removal from office.
    You guys also seem to think that "preponderance of evidence" is simply a matter of quantity, but it's the quality of evidence that matters. You could have a dozen shady witnesses (or witnesses promulgating rumors and hearsay) all claiming "He did it!", and it wouldn't qualify as a preponderance of evidence.
    The point is that a smoking gun isn't necessary whether you want to call it a preponderance, substantial, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence the House Dems have fits into either of those categories.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Actually no, MM, this is not a criminal trial, it's civil, there is no sentencing for a crime, there is just removal from office.
      Actually, it's neither. Impeachment is a sui generis constitutional process — a class of its own. It's more like a Grand Jury process than it is a trial, either criminal, civil or administrative. If you had to choose one of the three, it would be quasicriminal, because it is punitive in character.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Actually no, MM, this is not a criminal trial,...
        The clue that this is more criminal than civil should come from the fact that it's about "high crimes and misdemeanors" --- those are not civil in any way, shape or form.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          The clue that this is more criminal than civil should come from the fact that it's about "high crimes and misdemeanors" --- those are not civil in any way, shape or form.
          An actual crime needn't even be committed for impeachment.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            An actual crime needn't even be committed for impeachment.
            Good, cause none was.

            But it doesn't change the fact that it's not civil, Jim. You just got that wrong, that's all. But, because you're incapable of admitting you made a mistake, you'll probably go back to nasty mode.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
              You’re the one that brought this up, not me Jimmy. Don’t get mad at me because I sunk your battleship and exposed media hypocrisy and double standards.
              Yeah, but he always puts his battleships in a row on the same row. B1, B2, B3, B4 ...

              "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)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                preponderance of the evidence is to make the implications...

                What you wrote is of course taken into account in assessing the likelihood of either scenario but in this situation there’s only one scenario since the defense hasn’t offered one.
                Of course not - unlike any previous impeachment proceeding, the minority party has been prevented from calling its own witnesses, questioning witnesses and access to subpoena (until the first public at least when most were denied).

                "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)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Sondland was grilled during the hearing, and he consistently said that he was acting on his own presumption and not on any direct orders from the President.

                  Regarding the aid being withheld, yes, they need something more than the mere act of the aid being withheld to prove their case that a crime was committed, because withholding aid is not a crime in and of itself. Something like a memo, or an email, or a firsthand witness who received an order directly from the President. Until you have that, then the act of aid being withheld is not evidence of a crime.
                  Being fair, no, he wasn't. Confronted by hamstrung questioners, yes; thoroughly examined under oath, no.

                  You guys are hacking weeds - the Dems had the opportunity but didn't pursue it (precious little wonder - Sondland's the kind of witness you hope the other side calls) and the Republicans don't care so Sondland's assertion he acted under his own presumption will likely stand unless the Republicans try to drive it home and the Dems get a freaking clue at trial. OR his credibility is shredded for lying which is probably going to be the first line of attack.

                  Watermelon is overstating the strength of the case in my opinion but you're underestimating it. There is evidence - it's not strong or good and the case depends on following the bouncing ball but there is evidence. Water is correct that some of the hearsay may be allowed in (looooong story but it is possible to shoehorn stuff in) and the case is circumstantial. It's foolish to ignore a case just because you don't like its construction.

                  That said, Water seems to mistakenly believe there has been an opportunity for defense in the proceedings - maybe that's why he sees the case as stronger because it isn't yet shot to pieces. Dunno, but I think he's way overconfident about how much of the hearsay will be admitted and I'm dubious about at least one witness being recalled at all. None of the witnesses, public or private, have yet faced serious cross examination, nor has the premise of Trump being concerned about Biden as a political rival been explored.

                  Anyway, the symposium evidently failed because we have a new round of hearings Monday - oh, and we're back to Russia. Pelosi has gone completely AOC level nutty. It's a lovely day at Congress!

                  "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)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I laughed at the "dog coughing up blood" part. It just made the whole analogy even more surreal.
                    I didn't finish reading it.

                    Everyone has an off day.

                    "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)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      Look up what a rebuttable presumption means in the legal dictionary. If you claim a certain act ,even if it the act in itself is legal, was done to facilitate an illegal act then it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to claim otherwise.

                      I blame shift all the time, if a director of a company withdrawals money and can’t account for it, we don’t have to prove it was due to wrong doing we make the allegation and the director has to prove otherwise. A common one is if a company trades while insolvent then its automatically presumed the director/s are liable unless they prove otherwise.

                      Likewise if the allegation is that the aid was withheld for personal benefit and there is no explanation from Trump then you should be able to hold that presumption as truth until a coherent defense is made.
                      There's no way to benefit, personal or otherwise, by doing something to directly influence the actions of another without the other in some way knowing about it. Ukraine didn't know the aid was withheld so it could not have had any bearing on their actions had they complied with the request, which they didn't. The presumption itself is logically incoherent and shouldn't be held at all without substantiation.

                      "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)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        That's basically semantics, they all amount to the same thing.
                        Jim, stop digging.

                        "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)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          There's no way to benefit, personal or otherwise, by doing something to directly influence the actions of another without the other in some way knowing about it. Ukraine didn't know the aid was withheld so it could not have had any bearing on their actions had they complied with the request, which they didn't. The presumption itself is logically incoherent and shouldn't be held at all without substantiation.
                          Ukraine knew the aid was withheld. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/w...itary-aid.html

                          Now Teal is still holding her grudge and has me on ignore, so perhaps someone she doesn't have on ignore and who isn't trying to make sure the truth about this is suppressed can post this link with a comment or two so that she can get up to speed on the fact they knew the aid was being withheld in July and further, based on the testimony of this same official, their actions very much were based on that knowledge.
                          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            I laughed at the "dog coughing up blood" part. It just made the whole analogy even more surreal.
                            It reminded me of one of Joe Biden's answers.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              An actual crime needn't even be committed for impeachment.
                              This is priceless, and the Democrats are currently proving this to be true.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                Ukraine knew the aid was withheld. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/w...itary-aid.html

                                Now Teal is still holding her grudge and has me on ignore, so perhaps someone she doesn't have on ignore and who isn't trying to make sure the truth about this is suppressed can post this link with a comment or two so that she can get up to speed on the fact they knew the aid was being withheld in July and further, based on the testimony of this same official, their actions very much were based on that knowledge.
                                Teal is aware of this narrative because I responded to your post about it in another thread, and she amen'd my post. Here is my previous response:

                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                If they knew then it was because they figured it out on their own and not because Trump instructed anybody to tell them. Multiple witnesses testified that they were never told that release of the aid was tied to the investigations, and Sondland testified that Trump told him explicitly that he didn't want any reciprocation from Ukraine.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 10:00 AM
                                11 responses
                                33 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:49 AM
                                14 responses
                                73 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:47 AM
                                52 responses
                                357 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 01:07 AM
                                34 responses
                                243 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 01-24-2021, 07:45 PM
                                7 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X