The Impeachment Trial

[Mountain Man]

Who considered it a demand? Certainly not the Ukrainian government who has consistently said they were never pressured to do anything. Even Lt. Traitor Vindman when pressed on this point could not point to anything in the transcript which could justify his claim that the President made a demand. One of the funniest, laugh-out-loud moments from the House hearings:

Ratcliffe: You cannot point to me a specific place in the July 25th phone call that justifies the use of the word "demand".

Vindman: If you give me a minute, Congressman, I'll just --

Ratcliffe: Take as long as you want.

Vindman: And I'll take a look and see if I can find something.

It's like something out of a sitcom!

And for the record, after being generously given 5- or 6-minutes to look over the transcript, the little traitor came up empty and then weakly insisted that the entire phone call from beginning to end was somehow a "demand". With witnesses like that, it's no wonder the Democrats couldn't get a conviction.

...the testimonies of the witnesses regarding relevant events before and after that phone conversation makes it clear that the aid was conditioned on the public announcements.

This was all based on false presumption and office gossip and not any sort of directive from the President. Not a single person testified to receiving this order from the President himself or from anyone with the authority to speak for the President. On the contrary, Sondland testified that the President made it "crystal clear" that he did NOT want any kind of quid pro quo. Now unless Sondland can be shown to be lying, and given the lack of credible witnesses contradicting his testimony, we must necessarily presume that the President is innocent, which the Senate did, and it was the right call.

[Watermelon]

That would be Billy making a conclusion that he has no right to conclude.

um what? He can't testify that Billy said he was far away in order to prove that Billy was far away? That makes no sense. He can testify as to what Billy told him, regardless of what it is, as long as he doesn't try to make conclusions as above.

true.

[Sparko]

Because the terrorists were not there IN COURT. It was hearsay. But it was allowed to show that he was afraid for his life. That has nothing to do with what I said above.

You can testify as to what someone IN COURT has said to you though. That is not hearsay.

[The Pendragon]

I can do that with the witnesses testimony itself. All the witnesses where asked if they ever talked Directly to Trump, all with the exception of Sondland and Vindman, said that they had never discussed their assertions with Trump (Most of them never ever talked to Trump) they either heard it form someone else or assumed Trumps motives. Sondland and Vindman only had one first hand account each, Sondland as to what Trump told him and Vindiman as to the accuracy of the Call Transcript and that testimony ended up proving that the transcript was accurate.

Here where you get it wrong Watermelon, all the witnesses (except the two above) testified as to what someone else told them. In other words, the heard it from a friend that heard it for a friend that heard it from another ... Hearsay or if you like "a game of Post office".

And again with Sandland you are trying again to put words in my mouth, I have never said that Trump was telling the truth to Sondland, just as to what he was told it is then up to the Shifty to give evidence that Trump was lying with out real evidence under presumption of innocence we presume that Trump told Sondland the truth, Shifty never gave proof that Trump was not telling the truth, he make the assumption that because of the Whistle Blower's statement Trump was lying.

By the way why was the Whistle Blower's Statement never used by Shifty? Could it be because it did not match the accrual call and it was ALL hearsay, the Whistle Blower did not have First hand knowledge of the call, only office gossip.

Watermelon You have not given me any evidence as that Trump lied to Sondland With out any evidence to counter I do not have to prove that Trump was telling the truth, that pesky "Presumption of Innocence" thing your so quick to dismiss. (The Whistle Blower's statement is impugned evidence because of it's inaccuracy proving why Hearsay isn't credible evidence. If you want my case against Shifty it's easy, Trump knew that the Whistle Blower's statement was false and proved it by releasing the Call Transcript, He knew that the transcript cleared him so no motive to lie.

You need real evidence please provide it.

[The Pendragon]

Well as has been said before Impeachment is like a trial but its not, The house has the charge of gathering enough evidence to convince 2/3 of the Senate that the sitting President needs to be removed, whether that is with documentation or testimony. Then it presents this to the Senate for a vote. The House should have all the evidence it needs to convince the Senate and that should be present before the articles of impeachment are drafted. The House does not get to make a partial case and expect to finish up their investigating in the Senate.

Here is where Impeachment is not a trial, A trial does not shut down the government while the trial is going on, the Impeachment in the Senate does. The trial in the Senate was meant to be quick and exhilarated, there is no time to do discovery that the House neglected to do in their Investigation. The House is suppose to Just present the case in a concise manner and let the Senate vote, this means that new witnesses that them did not call are not part of the trail. I believe I explained that above.

By the way It was Shify's duty to to have every thing he needed to prove his case for "Abuse of Power" before he presented the articles of impeachment is sent over to the Senate if what come out of the House is not strong enough to convince 2/3 of the Senate then is Shifty's fault for not getting his duck in a row. If the prosecutor goes to court with a weak case you don't blame it on the Jury or the defense when he loses. and in this case "Abuse of Power" came down to Shifty and the Dems did not like the way Trump was doing things the way his underlings wanted i.e. Malfeasance which our Founders specifically said was not a reason for impeachment.

[Watermelon]

Because the terrorists were not there IN COURT. It was hearsay. But it was allowed to show that he was afraid for his life. That has nothing to do with what I said above.

You can testify as to what someone IN COURT has said to you though. That is not hearsay.

[The Pendragon]

Watermelon, if I get your citation right This is British law you are citing. I could be wrong but I think that "Presumption of Innocence" works deferentially in Brittan, you can be "Presumed Guilty" and then have to prove your innocence. In this case the person on trial has to prove that he was not lying, in the U.S. It would be the Prosecution that had to prove that the person on trial was guilty of lying. As I said I could be wrong, but things get sticky when you cite British Law to prove U.S. Law the standards are different at the very least.

Can you cite anything from U.S. Law to make your point?

[The Pendragon]

Also any witness could be lying about anything in their testimony.

Yes this is true, but a witness under oath can be charge with the Crime of Perjury. Not so with the secondary sources lying so it could have been just Idle gossip that was heard and nothing more.

[The Pendragon]

I'm not ready agree, but your point means nothing to the argument. Here's why:

Lets say that you are right and Sondland's testimony is not valid because it's hearsay.

First - None of the other witnesses have First hand knowledge of Trump policy (from their own testimony) so none of their testimony is valid either, you just proved our point. And you still don't have any real evidence.

Second - If Sondland's testimony can't be used, you have still not provided any evidence of a quid pro quo, Bribery, or Extortion. So you still haven't proven anything.

If you insist that the the circumstances around Trump are enough evidence. Then you convict the Biden's on the same standards of evidence that you use to convict Trump. In fact I would say that we have more evidence against the Biden's then you do against Trump if we use your standards. Pam Bondie had the Biden's convicted under your standard when she put forth her case in the Trial (The Citation is in the tread). Do you really want apply the same standards you use on Trump to the Biden's?

My standard to evidence is much higher and does not rise to the level of finding the Biden's Guilty it's only enough to warrant an investigation. I also have been applying this higher standard of evidence to Trump and I am still waiting for strong enough evidence to have 2/3 of the Senate vote for removal.

[Sparko]

I guess that would depend if Trump was going to testify or not. He said he would be willing to. In that case it would be admissible since Trump would be available to confirm he said it.

[RumTumTugger]

Watermelon I have a question for you do you live in the United States or are you a citizen of another country or the United States?

[Bill the Cat]

Watermelon I have a question for you do you live in the United States or are you a citizen of another country?

He's from Oz

[RumTumTugger]

He's from Oz

ahh that explains why he does not understand the presumption of innocence.

[Mountain Man]

Do Australian courts not presume innocence?

Well, it certainly explains the disconnect. I kept thinking maybe he was just a bad lawyer, but perhaps he's a good one in Australia.

[rogue06]

He's from Oz

I thought that the mangy pirate demonstrated that Australia was a myth.