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

[Watermelon]

Not hearsay. They are both testifying as firsthand witnesses who spoke directly with Trump.

For the record, the definition of hearsay is "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath".

According to your definition it’s still hearsay. Sondland has no personal knowledge that there is no quid pro quo, all he knows is that trump told him no quid pro quo. So if you want to use it as evidence to prove that there was no quid pro quo it’s hearsay.

It can however be used as evidence that Sondland believed that there was no quid pro quo. That’s the Subramaniam exception to hearsay.

Zelensky hasn’t said that in court so whoever tries to enter that as evidence will be slapped with hearsay.

[Mountain Man]

According to your definition it’s still hearsay. Sondland has no personal knowledge that there is no quid pro quo, all he knows is that trump told him no quid pro quo. So if you want to use it as evidence to prove that there was no quid pro quo it’s hearsay.

It can however be used as evidence that Sondland believed that there was no quid pro quo. That’s the Subramaniam exception to hearsay.

Zelensky hasn’t said that in court so whoever tries to enter that as evidence will be slapped with hearsay.

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.

[Watermelon]

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.

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.

[Sparko]

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).

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

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.

[Sparko]

Wow - you got lots of support for that post dragging me through the mud. Must be nice.

You ATTACK me, and I tell you to stop and suddenly I am the one "dragging you through the mud"

Well, Jim, if you don't want to be dragged through the mud, then stop throwing it and wallowing in it

[Watermelon]

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.

That’s not what direct evidence is. Direct evidence is evidence, if taken to be true, directly proves a fact on its own.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, ignoring it won’t make it go away.

[DivineOb]

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.

People are under the impression that circumstantial evidence is weak. Most evidence is circumstantial only and has put plenty of criminals in jail.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime."

Should we throw out all convictions which hinged on fingerprint evidence?

[Sam]

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.

This is not responsive to my post.

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

[Sam]

That’s not what direct evidence is. Direct evidence is evidence, if taken to be true, directly proves a fact on its own.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, ignoring it won’t make it go away.

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

[Sparko]

That’s not what direct evidence is. Direct evidence is evidence, if taken to be true, directly proves a fact on its own.

which is what something tangible would be, like a recording, or a memo, etc.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, ignoring it won’t make it go away.

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"

[DivineOb]

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.

I want to be polite but you're just wrong, Sparko. Here's the definition from law.com. Feel free to post a competing definition if you don't like that source.

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.

[rogue06]

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"

Lot of folks have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Forensics is based upon circumstantial evidence. But in this case you need some mighty strong chains to have a chance of connecting them and making a case based upon it.

[rogue06]

You realise that using Sondlands statement that Trump told him ‘no quid pro quo’ to prove there was no quid pro quo is hearsay?

Those repeated statements by Zelensky? Also hearsay I’m afraid.

It looks like you are having some serious difficulties understanding what hearsay is. Real serious.

[Sam]

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"

Reading the reports might help.

--Sam

[Sparko]

I want to be polite but you're just wrong, Sparko. Here's the definition from law.com. Feel free to post a competing definition if you don't like that source.

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.