Adverse Inference

[westwall]

So... sitting around dreaming up the newest retarded incarnation of IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE now appears to be SPORT for the unhinged democrats. It's like a CONTEST.

So Bill, got anything new?
No, Joe, I couldn't come up with anything, but I hear Sam down at the local Union office came up with something.
Oh really, well good for Sam, WE GOT HIM NOW.

The only people dreaming are you cult members. But you'll wake up if you re-elect trump and watch him become a dictator.

Ummmmm, we ain't the ones pulling steaming piles of shit out of our asses and flinging it at a wall hoping something sticks.

That's you clowns.

 

[jillian]

Nope.

This is America.

And you know nothing

 

[Dragonlady]

Nope.

This is America.

What idiots you Russians be! If all you had to do was to destroy evidence and intimmidate witnesses to keep from being convicted, nobody would ever be convicted.

Trump has already confessed that he did it. Trump foolishly released the Call Memo, which contains the quid quo pro of the missiles for investigations, and the testimony of Gordon Sondland and the two diplomats who over heard the call. Blocking witnesses from testifying, or having access to their own phone records makes Trump look guilty as hell because if there was ANYTHING in the stuff he thought might exonerate himself, Trump would bring it to Congressd in person.

 

[Oddball]

Nope.

This is America.

And you know nothing

 

[JGalt]

Nope.

This is America.

What idiots you Russians be! If all you had to do was to destroy evidence and intimmidate witnesses to keep from being convicted, nobody would ever be convicted.

Trump has already confessed that he did it. Trump foolishly released the Call Memo, which contains the quid quo pro of the missiles for investigations, and the testimony of Gordon Sondland and the two diplomats who over heard the call. Blocking witnesses from testifying, or having access to their own phone records makes Trump look guilty as hell because if there was ANYTHING in the stuff he thought might exonerate himself, Trump would bring it to Congressd in person.

Dey's not no damned rooshans in dis here tred. You done gots dem damned rooshins all swimmin' round in yo haid, gurlie.

 

[MAGAman]

Adverse Inference is an American foundational legal principle. You don't get to deny the courts evidence and testimony then claim innocence because the court couldn't find guilt. And since impeachment is not a criminal procedure... However there is plenty of evidence that shows trumps guilt. The goalposts have not been moved. You're just a cult worshipper.

No, I'm a reality worshiper.

You tards keep saying there's "plenty of evidence", but when asked to be specific you either leave the thread like a bitch or rant about something unrelated.

In REALITY there is ZERO evidence.

The Transcript completely exonerates Trump.

The alleged victim said it didn't happen.

All of Shiffs witnesses either said they didnt know shit or that Trump explicitly said no quid pro quo.

ZERO witnesses witnessed a single instance of Trump wrongdoing.

These facts are not in dispute.

The dispute is whether or not facts matter.

 

[OKTexas]

Adverse Inference is why we can say that trump is guilty and should be removed from office. There is no excuse for the obstruction by trump.

The adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive. Adverse inference can also apply to a witness known to exist but the party refuses to identify or produce.

Adverse inference - Wikipedia

According to Lawvibe, "the 'adverse inference' can be quite damning at trial. Essentially, when plaintiffs try to present evidence on a point essential to their case and can't because the document has been destroyed (by the defendant), the jury can infer that the evidence would have been adverse to (the defendant), and adopt the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of what the document would have said...."

Adverse inference - Wikipedia

An adverse inference generally is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, made from a party's silence or the absence of requested evidence. For example, as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, a court may instruct the jury it could draw an inference that the evidence contained in the destroyed documents would have been unfavorable.

Adverse Inference Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The courts decide that someone like the Pres is required to testify or turn over evidence. It's not the whims of political enemies in Congress who decide this, and until then the separation of powers exists for this very reason.
Members of the Senate have these same protections from the Executive branch as well. Right now all we are seeing is the shell game by the leftist Democrats, moving around the goal posts of impeachment..... looking for any reason to remove him, since day one, always changing their story, always finding someone and something new, that is never quite verified but always gets a big news story to sway public opinion.
This is all about the election. The Dems know they cant impeach him but they will keep it up right to the election to satisfy their base. It would be political death for anyone of them to back down now.

No. The president has obstructed every phase of these investigations. The story hasn't changed and people haven't been looking for reasons to remove him. The congress can impeach him and it will be up to the senate to convict him. Do not continue to be a sucker for trumps con.

Trump has hidden evidence and blocked witnesses. If he was innocent, if this was a hoax or witch hunt, he'd produce all the evidence necessary to prove it. You guys have chosen to believe a lie and when you look at all the evidence, you can easily see the lie and the fact that trumps story doesn't make sense.

You don't have over 140 meeting with Russians and members of your campaign by accident and trump is a micromanager. But you WANT to believe trump so you ignore the obvious.

The legislative branch does not have the constitutional authority to make demands on the executive. They are co-equal branches, the executive doesn't work at the pleasure of congress any more than congress works at the pleasure of the executive. If there is a dispute between them, that's what the third branch is for. That's elementary civics.

.

 

[IM2]

So... sitting around dreaming up the newest retarded incarnation of IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE now appears to be SPORT for the unhinged democrats. It's like a CONTEST.

So Bill, got anything new?
No, Joe, I couldn't come up with anything, but I hear Sam down at the local Union office came up with something.
Oh really, well good for Sam, WE GOT HIM NOW.

The only people dreaming are you cult members. But you'll wake up if you re-elect trump and watch him become a dictator.

Ummmmm, we ain't the ones pulling steaming piles of shit out of our asses and flinging it at a wall hoping something sticks.

That's you clowns.

Actually that's what trump has done. And you're too stupid to see it.

 

[IM2]

Adverse Inference is an American foundational legal principle. You don't get to deny the courts evidence and testimony then claim innocence because the court couldn't find guilt. And since impeachment is not a criminal procedure... However there is plenty of evidence that shows trumps guilt. The goalposts have not been moved. You're just a cult worshipper.

No, I'm a reality worshiper.

You tards keep saying there's "plenty of evidence", but when asked to be specific you either leave the thread like a bitch or rant about something unrelated.

In REALITY there is ZERO evidence.

The Transcript completely exonerates Trump.

The alleged victim said it didn't happen.

All of Shiffs witnesses either said they didnt know shit or that Trump explicitly said no quid pro quo.

ZERO witnesses witnessed a single instance of Trump wrongdoing.

These facts are not in dispute.

The dispute is whether or not facts matter.

Facts do matter and I am quite sure you've been shown them. And each time you've been shown them you've made the same claim. You had two weeks of evidence from people witnessing trumps wrongdoing. Furthermore additional documents requested have been hidden and witnesses with complete knowledge of the wrongdoing have been blocked. Mulvaney admitted your quid pro quo. trumps call transcript proved he attempted to solicit information. So you're here lying to yourself son and you're going to help enable a crook to get a second term whereby all bets are off as he ignores congressional authority to do whatever he wants. This ain't about a liberal takeover you fucking idiot, our republic is truly at stake.

 

[westwall]

So... sitting around dreaming up the newest retarded incarnation of IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE now appears to be SPORT for the unhinged democrats. It's like a CONTEST.

So Bill, got anything new?
No, Joe, I couldn't come up with anything, but I hear Sam down at the local Union office came up with something.
Oh really, well good for Sam, WE GOT HIM NOW.

The only people dreaming are you cult members. But you'll wake up if you re-elect trump and watch him become a dictator.

Ummmmm, we ain't the ones pulling steaming piles of shit out of our asses and flinging it at a wall hoping something sticks.

That's you clowns.

Actually that's what trump has done. And you're too stupid to see it.

No, that's what YOU are doing.

 

[007]

You're a dumb blind motherfucker with trumps dick stuck in your mouth.

Go pick some cotton, buckwheat.

That's about all you appear smart enough to do.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Nah, there's no need for that. Your ignorant ass just needs to recognize legal principles.

Innocent until proven guilty is the foundational legal principle, Einstien.

And not only is Trump not proven guilty, you don't h as ve as single piece of evidence to infer guilt.

Your goalpost moving shows you know you've got nothing.

Instead of grasping at straws, a smart person would just admit he was wrong and move on

Adverse Inference is an American foundational legal principle. You don't get to deny the courts evidence and testimony then claim innocence because the court couldn't find guilt. And since impeachment is not a criminal procedure... However there is plenty of evidence that shows trumps guilt. The goalposts have not been moved. You're just a cult worshipper.

I guess like the idiot you are, you dont know about the Separation of Powers?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nah, there's no need for that. Your ignorant ass just needs to recognize legal principles.

Innocent until proven guilty is the foundational legal principle, Einstien.

And not only is Trump not proven guilty, you don't h as ve as single piece of evidence to infer guilt.

Your goalpost moving shows you know you've got nothing.

Instead of grasping at straws, a smart person would just admit he was wrong and move on

Adverse Inference is an American foundational legal principle. You don't get to deny the courts evidence and testimony then claim innocence because the court couldn't find guilt. And since impeachment is not a criminal procedure... However there is plenty of evidence that shows trumps guilt. The goalposts have not been moved. You're just a cult worshipper.

The Salem Witch trials were by Adverse Inference.. No Evidence... No Problem...The ACCUSATION is enough..... Now we have idiots going back down this road... Talk about cults...