Originally posted by Mountain Man
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
Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter
Collapse
X
-
You've got it backwards. One would have to prove that there was quid pro quo, not that there wasn't, and Sondland's testimony along with other evidence introduces reasonable doubt.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 Sam View PostWhere Sondland's testimony was unreliable, it was in forgetting or fudging fact details that would be incriminating to Trump, details he had to "clean up" later after reviewing others' testimony.
For instance (fine, we'll do it again), Sondland first omitted his September call with the President. After the Volker texts, though, he "recalled" a Sept. 9 phone call with Trump where Trump allegedly gave him the "no quid pro" line. That recollection was in response to a text message from Taylor, who was incredulous that the official US position now was that security aid was being withheld to aid Trump's political campaign.
But then Tim Morrison testified to a Sept. 7th call where Sondland had spoken to Trump, with Trump allegedly telling Sondland that he wanted no quid pro quo --- but then immediately following that with repeating his conditions for a WH meeting and the release of the security aid. Sondland would then, in later testimony, try further clean up, stating that he must have had two calls with the President but could not locate any record of the purported Sept. 9 call.
That timeline is important and incriminating because it indicates that Taylor's text to Sondland came two days after the President had reiterated his conditions for releasing the aid to Sondland, not after Taylor had messaged. The actual timeline of Trump's demands and blocking of aid shows that he was pursuing this pressure campaign and actively engaged right up to the end, not out of the loop and blindsided by an overreaching ambassador (working the whole time with several other senior officials and the President's personal attorney).
As for Biden, the USA has a MLAT with Ukraine for precisely this purpose. If there's a valid predicate for an investigation, it comes from the DOJ and the DOJ, if necessary, seeks relevant information from Ukraine through the MLAT. It's amazing that people who claim or claimed to be conservative are now arguing that the President, on any whim he might have, can legitimately demand an investigation into someone -- whether through DOJ or a foreign country.
Regarding "pick the best direct evidence" --- that's nonsense. Evidence -- direct and testimonial -- is cumulative. It works together, fits together, to cause a reasonable or compelling conclusion. You can't cherry-pick a case. You deal with how the pieces fit together (or don't) and whether the conclusion follows from that network of facts.
--Sam
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostWow - you got lots of support for that post dragging me through the mud. Must be nice.
Well, Jim, if you don't want to be dragged through the mud, then stop throwing it and wallowing in itLast edited by Sparko; 01-06-2020, 11:35 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, DIRECT evidence is something tangible. Like a memo, or recording, or a reliable witness. Which you can't provide or point to. So basically there is no direct evidence and only doubtful testimony from a witness who keeps changing his story.
But, even so, if you're saying that direct evidence includes things like memos, recordings, and reliable witnesses then you are saying something entirely incompatible with your assertion that the HPSCI and Judiciary reports contain "complete hearsay", as they include messages, emails, reliable witness testimony from a half-dozen people reporting on contemporaneous events.
Can't go walking down two roads at once.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Thank you -- I have been muddling this terminology a bit loosely in order to contrast between documentary evidence and testimonial evidence. But I shouldn't and I'll tighten it up to help avoid confusion.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
which is what something tangible would be, like a recording, or a memo, etc.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything. It is circumstantial, and it doesn't hold up in court unless there is direct evidence backing it up.
Heck I don't even know of any evidence here, other than Trump made a phone call to Zelensky and talked about him investigating the Biden thing. That much is fact. What isn't fact is that Trump meant it as "quid pro quo" or as an attempt to get a leg up on Biden in the upcoming election.
An impeachment is a very serious matter and it needs to be on solid irrefutable evidence, not rumors, not innuendo, not hearsay, and not "circumstantial evidence"Last edited by Sparko; 01-06-2020, 01:50 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostCircumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything. It is circumstantial, and it doesn't hold up in court unless there is direct evidence backing it up.
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwhich is what something tangible would be, like a recording, or a memo, etc.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything. It is circumstantial, and it doesn't hold up in court unless there is direct evidence backing it up.
Heck I don't even know of any evidence here, other than Trump made a phone call to Zelensky and talked about him investigating the Biden thing. That much is fact. What isn't fact is that Trump meant it as "quid pro quo" or as an attempt to get a leg up on Biden in the upcoming election.
An impeachment is a very serious matter and it needs to be on solid irrefutable evidence, not rumors, not innuendo, not hearsay, and not "circumstantial evidence"
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
-
It looks like you are having some serious difficulties understanding what hearsay is. Real serious.
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwhich is what something tangible would be, like a recording, or a memo, etc.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything. It is circumstantial, and it doesn't hold up in court unless there is direct evidence backing it up.
Heck I don't even know of any evidence here, other than Trump made a phone call to Zelensky and talked about him investigating the Biden thing. That much is fact. What isn't fact is that Trump meant it as "quid pro quo" or as an attempt to get a leg up on Biden in the upcoming election.
An impeachment is a very serious matter and it needs to be on solid irrefutable evidence, not rumors, not innuendo, not hearsay, and not "circumstantial evidence"
Reading the reports might help.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Direct Evidence
Evidence that directly links a person to a crime, without the need of any inference (for example, they were seen committing the crime). Compare to circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence that implies a person committed a crime, (for example, the person was seen running away from the crime scene). There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight.
-- Cornell Law School.
In this case we only have rumors and inferences that witnesses made on their own. The only direct evidence is that Trump made the phone call and discussed investigating Biden, and that both Trump and Zelensky deny that it was any sort of quid pro quo.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
4 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 12:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
106 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
154 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment