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

Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter

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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    As your example shows, the circumstantial evidence needs to be backed up by direct evidence or be so overwhelming that there is no denying the implication. Because that is what circumstantial evidence is: implication. Direct evidence is fact.

    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.
    Sondland's testimony directly links Trump to the quid quo pro with the Sept. 7 phone call, where Trump reiterated that Zelensky would have to "get in front of the cameras" and announce the investigations into Biden & the DNC/DSCC server or there would be a stalemate. This testimony was corroborated by Morrison's testimony and the administration is currently refusing to produce the legal memo that would have been written up when Morrison took the matter to the lawyers.

    Direct testimony that can be backed by testimonial and documentary evidence.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Sondland's testimony directly links Trump to the quid quo pro with the Sept. 7 phone call, where Trump reiterated that Zelensky would have to "get in front of the cameras" and announce the investigations into Biden & the DNC/DSCC server or there would be a stalemate. This testimony was corroborated by Morrison's testimony and the administration is currently refusing to produce the legal memo that would have been written up when Morrison took the matter to the lawyers.

      Direct testimony that can be backed by testimonial and documentary evidence.

      --Sam
      Sondland's testimony that Trump expressly and explicitly told him that he wanted nothing in return? Or his testimony that in spite of this he "guessed" (his word) that Trump still wanted something.

      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 Sam View Post
        Sondland's testimony directly links Trump to the quid quo pro with the Sept. 7 phone call, where Trump reiterated that Zelensky would have to "get in front of the cameras" and announce the investigations into Biden & the DNC/DSCC server or there would be a stalemate. This testimony was corroborated by Morrison's testimony and the administration is currently refusing to produce the legal memo that would have been written up when Morrison took the matter to the lawyers.

        Direct testimony that can be backed by testimonial and documentary evidence.

        --Sam
        No. At best it says that he interpreted Trump as meaning quid pro quo. And again, his testimony changed, so I don't put much stock in it. If a direct witness changes his story, he is usually dismissed as unreliable.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          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.
          I think I misunderstood your earlier posts a bit and I now think we do agree on the definitions. I don't think it would be productive for me to try to lay out the full case here. Perhaps I will start a thread on particular items I find interesting to get your take.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            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"
            You are confusing the evidence form and type.

            Evidence could be tangible, testimonial, documentary or demonstrative in it’s form.

            Type of evidence is either direct or circumstantial based on what it proves.

            A recording or a memo are both documentary and not tangible forms of evidence.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              It looks like you are having some serious difficulties understanding what hearsay is. Real serious.
              Which part?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Sondland's testimony that Trump expressly and explicitly told him that he wanted nothing in return? Or his testimony that in spite of this he "guessed" (his word) that Trump still wanted something.
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                No. At best it says that he interpreted Trump as meaning quid pro quo. And again, his testimony changed, so I don't put much stock in it. If a direct witness changes his story, he is usually dismissed as unreliable.
                It would have helped, Sparko, if you had responded to my post you quoted where I walked through this matter:

                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Where 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).
                To Rogue: Sondland's call with Trump was on Sept. 7, where Trump did say no quid pro quo but immediately followed that up by reiterating the quid pro quo. Sondland would relay that message to Taylor, who then complained in a Sept. 8/9 text that security aid was being held up for a political campaign, and to Morrison, who would relay the substance of Sondland's discussion with legal counsel.

                No guessing involved. What you're both resting on is a mob boss saying "Of course we don't want anyone killed! But if we're going to move forward on the deal, Tommy Five Fingers has to be six feet in the ground."

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  ...a mob boss...
                  "a mob boss"

                  Tell me, do you get ALL of your talking points straight from Schiff?

                  You have set up a nice Catch-22 there. If he in no uncertain terms tells people he doesn't want anything in return then that's proof that he really wants something in return. And FWIU your typical mob boss always makes it unequivocally clear that they want something in return. They don't pretend otherwise.

                  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 rogue06 View Post
                    Sondland's testimony that Trump expressly and explicitly told him that he wanted nothing in return? Or his testimony that in spite of this he "guessed" (his word) that Trump still wanted something.
                    How many criminals will tell you they didn't do it?

                    The fact Trump claimed he 'wanted nothing in return' after he knew he was about to get outed means absolutely nothing in terms of his potential innocence. Especially when all the evidence we have points the other direction.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      How many criminals will tell you they didn't do it?

                      The fact Trump claimed he 'wanted nothing in return' after he knew he was about to get outed means absolutely nothing in terms of his potential innocence. Especially when all the evidence we have points the other direction.
                      They tell you after they get caught NOT when they are supposedly right in the middle of their crime.

                      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 rogue06 View Post
                        "a mob boss"

                        Tell me, do you get ALL of your talking points straight from Schiff?

                        You have set up a nice Catch-22 there. If he in no uncertain terms tells people he doesn't want anything in return then that's proof that he really wants something in return.
                        Want to know how to prove he wants nothing in return? Release the aid promptly once it is certified that UKR had met all the preconditions.

                        And FWIU your typical mob boss always makes it unequivocally clear that they want something in return. They don't pretend otherwise.
                        "Make him an offer he can't refuse."

                        "It would be shame if this warehouse burned down, happens all the time."

                        "I want nothing. I just want him to do the right thing."

                        Get the picture? Mob bosses don't give direct orders because that makes it easy to catch them :).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          They tell you after they get caught NOT when they are supposedly right in the middle of their crime.
                          Rogue - you are so much smarter than that. If Trump knew his plan was about to get outed, he would - in fact - take every opportunity to re-enforce the plausible deniability he was already operating under. If you look at the history of the man, this is what he does, how he works.

                          His statement to Sondland means nothing in terms providing evidence for his innocence in the matter.
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-06-2020, 04:42 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            "a mob boss"

                            Tell me, do you get ALL of your talking points straight from Schiff?

                            You have set up a nice Catch-22 there. If he in no uncertain terms tells people he doesn't want anything in return then that's proof that he really wants something in return. And FWIU your typical mob boss always makes it unequivocally clear that they want something in return. They don't pretend otherwise.
                            You're not an idiot; you understand what an analogy is and what a Catch-22 is.

                            No one is saying that because Trump said "no quid quo pro" that proves a quid quo pro. What's clear, though, is that Trump repeated his demand for a public announcement of investigations into Biden & the DNC/DSCC servers, or there would be a "stalemate", immediately after he said he didn't want a quid quo pro. That's pretty unequivocally clear!

                            And, to speak to a later excuse, Trump knew about the whistleblower complaint before Sept. 7. He was informed of it in late August. By early September, he and others in DOJ had already quashed the CIA legal counsel's complaint and were actively moving to inhibit ICIG and DNI from sending the complaint to Congress.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              Why is it backwards? You were using that part of Sondlands testimony as evidence of no quid pro quo. I was just pointing out it wouldn’t be admissible in court.
                              It would be admissible. Sondland would be testifying to something spoken directly to him by a principle. It's confirmation or refutation of what the principle stated and is therefore admissible.

                              The big problem with Sondland is that he has a tenuous relationship with the truth. His whole testimony is questionable. But that's still a bigger problem for prosecution than for defense. Sondland is the only witness to have direct contact with Trump. Without his assumption about Trump's intentions an already weak case gets a lot weaker.

                              With his own admission that Trump denied a qpq, it's even more undermined.

                              A weak circumstantial case going to an antagonistic jury and being watched by a highly skeptical public... this is going to make the OJ trial look like brilliant casework.
                              "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 Sparko View Post
                                No, 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.
                                Tangible evidence is not necessarily direct evidence. Eye witness testimony is always direct evidence however.
                                "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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 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
                                86 responses
                                394 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X