Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[drobeski 3,061]

16 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Member, when the board libs kept sourcing the 19 agencies all agreeing?

Member, when they tried to mock us for our distrust in the alphabet agencies?

Member, when they said we were unamerican for even questioning the "evidence"

Member, when they still believe everything the TV tells them? 

Member, there is indisputable proof the FBI leadership was corrupt and conspired with the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Biden, and OBAMA to spy on private American citizens, who did NOTHING WRONG.

Member, when the FBI leadership and Democrats attacked our democracy, because they didn't think they could lose.

The took their deflated ball and went home.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

47 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Which is all you have.

July 25 call hearsay?

Mulvaney’s admission hearsay?

What Taylor’s aide overhead Trump saying on the phone hearsay?

What Sondland acknowledged he told Taylor‘s aide hearsay?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

57 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Hearsay IS evidence dumbo

• Witnesses must testify under oath
• Witnesses must be subject to cross-examination
• Witnesses must be present in court for the fact-finder to assess their demeanor and credibility

so what you are saying is that hearsay is not evidence, because none of these 3 events to make it valid have occurred

[sderk 1,040]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Hearsay IS evidence dumbo

I heard you're a pedophile. Many others have heard the same.

You need to register as such dlckhead.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

• Witnesses must testify under oath
• Witnesses must be subject to cross-examination
• Witnesses must be present in court for the fact-finder to assess their demeanor and credibility

so what you are saying is that hearsay is not evidence, because none of these 3 events to make it valid have occurred

Da fock are you babbling about?

[5-Points 2,734]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Hearsay IS evidence dumbo

Yeah, but it's inadmissible in a court of law. Right?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

14 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Da fock are you babbling about?

not hard, in order for hearsay to be evidence the 3 things I listed must have occurred, none have, therefore hearsay is not evidence

[lickin_starfish 1,482]

1 hour ago, sderk said:

I heard you're a pedophile. Many others have heard the same.

You need to register as such dlckhead.

He tried looking at my young son's peenis in a rest stop bathroom.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,527]

6 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

He tried looking at my young son's peenis in a rest stop bathroom.

Is that something you just "heard" from someone else?  Or did you hear it from someone who "heard" it from someone else?

The deeper the hearsay goes, the more truthful it is, didn't you know that?

[IGotWorms 3,317]

58 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Yeah, but it's inadmissible in a court of law. Right?

Ah ha! Now we’re getting somewhere.

Yes, hearsay is inadmissible EVIDENCE, *if* it’s actually hearsay *and* it isn’t covered by an exception to the rule.

Hearsay is an out of court statement made by someone other than the testifying witness which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Hearsay *does not* include statements by a party opponent or their agents or co conspirators.

All of the supposed hearsay statements are Trump’s own words and therefore statements of a party opponent. They aren’t hearsay, period.

They also aren’t hearsay because they statements were would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If the statement is “Ukraine must investigate the Bidens or I’m withholding aid”, or words to that effect, what matters is that the statement was made and was criminal, not whether Trump actually was going to withhold aid. This is a finer point that I wouldn’t expect those without a legal education to understand and it even trips up many lawyers.

 Plus there’s exceptions like statement against interest, excited utterance, future plan or intent, present sense impression, etc.

 Bottom line is the hearsay rule is far narrower than most lay people understand and in this circumstance where’s it’s the House v Trump, the House will be able to use any and all statements attributable to Trump or his White House because they’re party opponents.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

41 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

not hard, in order for hearsay to be evidence the 3 things I listed must have occurred, none have, therefore hearsay is not evidence

What were you quoting? Please link so I can see.

But bottom line, no—you are wrong. What you’ve quoted looks like it’s from the Confrontation Clause and not hearsay rules, and Confrontation Clause is only implicated in certain circumstances. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What were you quoting? Please link so I can see.

But bottom line, no—you are wrong. What you’ve quoted looks like it’s from the Confrontation Clause and not hearsay rules, and Confrontation Clause is only implicated in certain circumstances. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

shrug

[5-Points 2,734]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Ah ha! Now we’re getting somewhere.

 Bottom line is the hearsay rule is far narrower than most lay people understand and in this circumstance where’s it’s the House v Trump, the House will be able to use any and all statements attributable to Trump or his White House because they’re party opponents.

The House had its chance and they came up with nothing.

It is now in the hands of the Senate.

I'm sorry but this thing is over.

  

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

10 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

shrug

Well first of all that’s just a statement of rationale underlying the hearsay rule. It doesn’t define what “evidence” is, which is what you said. Basically anything is evidence; doesn’t even need to be testimony of course since it can be documents, objects and all sorts of stuff. Now some things are inadmissible evidence, like actual hearsay, but it’s still “evidence.” Just means you can’t use it.

Secondly like I said and like your article acknowledges, many out of court statements are not hearsay and even those that do qualify as “hearsay” may be subject to one of MANY exceptions to the hearsay rule which means they’re still admissible.

 You guys are mostly off the mark with your hearsay protestations. It might (and in fact probably would) exclude the whistleblowers complaint and Taylor’s statement that his aide told him X, but that’s just about it from the evidence I’ve seen. And recall that with Taylor’s statement that his aide told him X his aide then testified too and confirmed the statement under oath, so even that statement isn’t hearsay when the aide testified to it.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

The House had its chance and they came up with nothing.

It is now in the hands of the Senate.

I'm sorry but this thing is over.

  

 

Well that’s a different argument. I disagree with your evaluation of the evidence but you’re probably right that it’s going nowhere regardless. I’ve said the house should’ve censured Trump rather than  impeaching him

[shorepatrol 1,737]

56 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Ah ha! Now we’re getting somewhere.

Yes, hearsay is inadmissible EVIDENCE, *if* it’s actually hearsay *and* it isn’t covered by an exception to the rule.

Hearsay is an out of court statement made by someone other than the testifying witness which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Hearsay *does not* include statements by a party opponent or their agents or co conspirators.

All of the supposed hearsay statements are Trump’s own words and therefore statements of a party opponent. They aren’t hearsay, period.

They also aren’t hearsay because they statements were would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If the statement is “Ukraine must investigate the Bidens or I’m withholding aid”, or words to that effect, what matters is that the statement was made and was criminal, not whether Trump actually was going to withhold aid. This is a finer point that I wouldn’t expect those without a legal education to understand and it even trips up many lawyers.

 Plus there’s exceptions like statement against interest, excited utterance, future plan or intent, present sense impression, etc.

 Bottom line is the hearsay rule is far narrower than most lay people understand and in this circumstance where’s it’s the House v Trump, the House will be able to use any and all statements attributable to Trump or his White House because they’re party opponents.

The reaching you've been doing for 3 years is focking pathetic. It's like your auditioning for the View with every post 

[sderk 1,040]

2 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

The reaching you've been doing for 3 years is focking pathetic. It's like your auditioning for the View with every post 

The View interview:

Interviewer: Tell us little about yourself worms.

Worms: Well, I love to spend time being a nonsensical extreme leftist on chat boards throughout the world. I am a failed lawyer. Meaning I took a class on what a lawyer may or may not be once in my parents anti religion chat group and they told me I would be best suited to pretend that I am an actual lawyer. So far it's not working out but I never give up.

Interviewer: Congratulations! You're now on our waiting list. Greta is much more creative than you in current times, so, she's up next. And honestly, your act is getting old so you may want to look elsewhere even though we love the old narrative.   

[IGotWorms 3,317]

27 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

The reaching you've been doing for 3 years is focking pathetic. It's like your auditioning for the View with every post 

This is just a discussion of legal principles

[Cdub100 3,384]

 

 

 

1

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

July 25 call hearsay?

Mulvaney’s admission hearsay?

What Taylor’s aide overhead Trump saying on the phone hearsay?

What Sondland acknowledged he told Taylor‘s aide hearsay?

1. We've seen the transcript and there's nothing there. Hell Trump came out and said to the rat who was trying to entrap him NO QUID PRO QUO. Why even bring this up?

2. Mulvaney blamed the media for misconstruing his comments and advancing “a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump.”

“The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server,” Mulvaney said in a statement. “The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption."

3. So focking what. Asking an ally to look into corruption isn't a crime. 

4. I'm sure he did, because he didn't do anything wrong.

 

Look dude just stop. There's no crime here. It is totally appropriate for a president to ask another president to look into corruption when it comes to our tax dollars. That's why the house didn't include any of this sh1t in their impeachment sham.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

Worms is for illegal immigrants getting fee healthcare and college. Because all of our citizens are taken care of at this point. He also doesn't want to see criminal illegals deported. I wonder why he would be for that stuff? 

[sderk 1,040]

2 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

He tried looking at my young son's peenis in a rest stop bathroom.

I heard about that from someone who heard about it from someone who heard a noise in one of the stalls in some rest stop bathroom. Had to be him. The evidence is overwhelming. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Worms is for illegal immigrants getting fee healthcare and college. Because all of our citizens are taken care of at this point. He also doesn't want to see criminal illegals deported. I wonder why he would be for that stuff? 

I am? News to me

[sderk 1,040]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Worms is for illegal immigrants getting fee healthcare and college. Because all of our citizens are taken care of at this point. He also doesn't want to see criminal illegals deported. I wonder why he would be for that stuff? 

Ooooo. Ooooo. Pick me...... Let me try!!

Um, because he is broke and useless in our society and wants something for nothing???? 

Or is it, he has so much hatred in his heart for our president that he wants all of America to fail in an attempt to make Trump appear bad????

So many possible answers. 

 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

36 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

This is just a discussion of legal principles

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I am? News to me

Oh, so you're not going to vote for one of the democratic candidates? 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh, so you're not going to vote for one of the democratic candidates? 

Yes I am

[shorepatrol 1,737]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes I am

That was rhetorical. You're a fake lawyer and a bad troll. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes I am

So you're for that stuff then. Ok. But I have a serious question for you: What do you think of that FBI lawyer changing that e-mail for the FISA warrant? Why do you think he did it? Do you think he did it on his own, or did higher ups know? 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

She you're for that stuff then. Ok. But I have a serious question for you: What do you think of that FBI lawyer changing that e-mail for the FISA warrant? Why do you think he did it? Do you think he did it on his own, or did higher ups know? 

No I’m not for that stuff. Well healthcare maybe. I mean the thing is they’re physically present and you’re not going to let them die on the street. They get healthcare regardless, like right now they get healthcare and you pay for it in an inefficient way through higher insurance premiums. If there’s a better way of dealing with that issue I’m all for it.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with the rest of the stuff. I’m not too interested in the distraction efforts

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:15 AM, Cdub100 said:

Cool, still not a crime.

Oh that, coupled with the fact that he then released the aid right after the story went public, clearly indicates that he was in fact making an extortionate quid. Pro quo deal.

Indicates, mind, not proves. It isn't a smoking gun, but it's pretty obvious that's what happened. Won't be enough for the senate of course. 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’m not too interested in the distraction efforts

Focking clown shoes. Good job 

[drobeski 3,061]

2 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Oh that, coupled with the fact that he then released the aid right after the story went public, clearly indicates that he was in fact making an extortionate quid. Pro quo deal.

Indicates, mind, not proves. It isn't a smoking gun, but it's pretty obvious that's what happened. Won't be enough for the senate of course. 

Wow

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

No I’m not for that stuff. Well healthcare maybe. I mean the thing is they’re physically present and you’re not going to let them die on the street. They get healthcare regardless, like right now they get healthcare and you pay for it in an inefficient way through higher insurance premiums. If there’s a better way of dealing with that issue I’m all for it.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with the rest of the stuff. I’m not too interested in the distraction efforts

You're not aware of the FBI lawyer changing an e-mail that was submitted to the FISA court in order to surveil an American citizen? It was in the IG report. It's not disputed. The lawyers name is Kevin Clinesmith. You can look it up. I'm interested in your take. 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

3 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Oh that, coupled with the fact that he then released the aid right after the story went public, clearly indicates that he was in fact making an extortionate quid. Pro quo deal.

Indicates, mind, not proves. It isn't a smoking gun, but it's pretty obvious that's what happened. Won't be enough for the senate of course. 

Orange man bad. We get you hate him. Unfockingreal 

[lickin_starfish 1,482]

It's mind boggling the things liberals are willing to ignore in order to keep believing Orange Man bad.

[Cdub100 3,384]

22 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Oh that, coupled with the fact that he then released the aid right after the story went public, clearly indicates that he was in fact making an extortionate quid. Pro quo deal.

Indicates, mind, not proves. It isn't a smoking gun, but it's pretty obvious that's what happened. Won't be enough for the senate of course. 

No you're projecting what you want it to be. Once again no aid was actually released at that point in time. 

Why are you so disingenuous to leave this very important fact out. Don't be a liar like worms I know you're better than that.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

13 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

No you're projecting what you want it to be. Once again no aid was actually released at that point in time. 

Why are you so disingenuous to leave this very important fact out. Don't be a liar like worms I know you're better than that.

What kind of loony tunes crap are you talking here?

[IGotWorms 3,317]

40 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You're not aware of the FBI lawyer changing an e-mail that was submitted to the FISA court in order to surveil an American citizen? It was in the IG report. It's not disputed. The lawyers name is Kevin Clinesmith. You can look it up. I'm interested in your take. 

You got a link? A credible source, please

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

You got a link? A credible source, please

Put his name in google and take your pick of credible sources. 

[Strike 3,979]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You got a link? A credible source, please

Here ya go, Mr. willfully ignorant wannabe lawyer guy:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/politics/fisa-court-clinesmith-fbi-carter-page/index.html