Amb William Taylor, is Tramp embezzeling, its like he thinks the money

[BULLDOG]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

"Don't worry about those blindfolds you're wearing, we'll continue to spoon feed you all of your favorite fantasies."
That's what you're doing to yourself, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

You know better than to ask me that question. Or at least you should, I'm not pro Trump, never have been. But then again individual political ideology can blind even the smartest people, pull your blinders off.
Show me real evidence not "this is how I see it" evidence, "so and so told me" (second hand, not admissible in court) evidence, etc.

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

thats exactly what 2nd hand info is,,,
since the beginning of this country 2nd hand info is seldom considered in court and most time thrown out as hear say,,,,

you clearly are not qualified to discuss this issue,,,,

Testifying to what was actually said to you is not second hand. A witness might not know if what was said to him is true,(that would be the second hand part) but he can certainly testify about what was said to him. Further proof is required to show if what was said to him was a lie or the truth. Lots of evidence in court hinges on that difference. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen that play out in court many times. Testifying to the words that are actually said to you is not second hand.

 

[BULLDOG]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

"Don't worry about those blindfolds you're wearing, we'll continue to spoon feed you all of your favorite fantasies."
That's what you're doing to yourself, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

$40 Million Mad Moscow Mueller Report called Clinton, Obama and You all Liars and Russian Assets yourself.

WTF is wrong with you? You having some sort of spasm? Try again, but try to make sense this time dumb ass.

 

[Ringel05]

Politics........

Yes. For personal political gain, dope.
Self dealing.

Oh that's right, you believe that politicians, especially those that represent your ideology are above "politics......."
You live in a fantasy world but as long as you're happy.......
Just for the self deceptional, I put politics in quotation marks to represent all that encompasses that field of endeavor....... ALL........

Self dealing is misconduct. Impeachable conduct, dope.

Never said it wasn't but then again I never said it was....... Hack.

You don't seem to know what you're saying.

Only in the mind of a political hack....... Notice I didn't specify party affiliation...... Oops, kinda blows your "if he's not us he's them" bull shit out of the water.

 

[Ringel05]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

"Don't worry about those blindfolds you're wearing, we'll continue to spoon feed you all of your favorite fantasies."
That's what you're doing to yourself, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

$40 Million Mad Moscow Mueller Report called Clinton, Obama and You all Liars and Russian Assets yourself.

WTF is wrong with you? You having some sort of spasm? Try again, but try to make sense this time dumb ass.

That's like asking shit not to stink. Good luck with that one.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

You know better than to ask me that question. Or at least you should, I'm not pro Trump, never have been. But then again individual political ideology can blind even the smartest people, pull your blinders off.
Show me real evidence not "this is how I see it" evidence, "so and so told me" (second hand, not admissible in court) evidence, etc.

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

 

[Ringel05]

You know better than to ask me that question. Or at least you should, I'm not pro Trump, never have been. But then again individual political ideology can blind even the smartest people, pull your blinders off.
Show me real evidence not "this is how I see it" evidence, "so and so told me" (second hand, not admissible in court) evidence, etc.

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

 

[kyzr]

"Don't worry about those blindfolds you're wearing, we'll continue to spoon feed you all of your favorite fantasies."
That's what you're doing to yourself, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

What we're saying is that your "evidence" isn't worth anything.
First, Professor Alan Dershowitz says the Ukraine call isn't "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Ukraine Transcript Isn't Impeachable or Criminal: Kevin McCullough with Alan Dershowitz - Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News - Omny.fm

Second, the timeline for the "evidence" disproves any "quid-pro-quo".
Ukrainian official appears to cast doubt on quid pro quo claim

So please stop with the fake news already. There is no there there.

Deshowitz is a trained lapdog for faux. He will say what they tell him to.

The other link is a month outta date and completely irrelevant in light of the last few weeks revelations.

Try again tRumpling.

1. I'll take a Harvard law professor's opinion over anyone you have. Who do you have? I never see any major Law professors putting their reputation on the line for the democrat's list of bullshit "impeachable crimes".

2. The timeline is what is valid. There was no QPQ because the Ukraine didn't know that the funding was being delayed, duh. From the article:
"An unnamed Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. suspended security funds until a month after President Trump's call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower's account and Democrats' arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid."

Wow. A Ukrainian official, desperate for US help said what he knows Trump wants to hear. Of course, since he is unnamed, he might not even exist.

Like the anonymous whistle-blower, and the anonymous op-ed writer, sure, Trump's source doesn't exist?
Maybe he just doesn't want to end up dead.

I provide credible links and the progs throw bullshit. Now I hear the big money democrat donors don't like the choices. Look for someone new to enter the race soon. Hillary? Michele? Bloomberg? Who else? Otherwise they know they can't beat Trump in 2020.

 

[BULLDOG]

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

What we're saying is that your "evidence" isn't worth anything.
First, Professor Alan Dershowitz says the Ukraine call isn't "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Ukraine Transcript Isn't Impeachable or Criminal: Kevin McCullough with Alan Dershowitz - Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News - Omny.fm

Second, the timeline for the "evidence" disproves any "quid-pro-quo".
Ukrainian official appears to cast doubt on quid pro quo claim

So please stop with the fake news already. There is no there there.

Deshowitz is a trained lapdog for faux. He will say what they tell him to.

The other link is a month outta date and completely irrelevant in light of the last few weeks revelations.

Try again tRumpling.

1. I'll take a Harvard law professor's opinion over anyone you have. Who do you have? I never see any major Law professors putting their reputation on the line for the democrat's list of bullshit "impeachable crimes".

2. The timeline is what is valid. There was no QPQ because the Ukraine didn't know that the funding was being delayed, duh. From the article:
"An unnamed Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. suspended security funds until a month after President Trump's call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower's account and Democrats' arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid."

Wow. A Ukrainian official, desperate for US help said what he knows Trump wants to hear. Of course, since he is unnamed, he might not even exist.

Like the anonymous whistle-blower, and the anonymous op-ed writer, sure, Trump's source doesn't exist?
Maybe he just doesn't want to end up dead.

Don't worry. Just keep that tinfoil hat close, and you'll be fine.

 

[peach174]

Steve Scalise compares Schiff's secret hearings to the Soviet Union

Secret hearings?

You and Scalise should read up on how impeachment inquiries are conducted.

There were nearly two years of closed hearings during watergate.

Don't be so easily led by dopey rhetoric.

They voted on it first so each side had equal council.

What does that even mean?

It means no railroading like they are doing.
One sided only ,never goes over well with the people.

It's not one sided, dope. Every investigating committee has equal numbers of Dems and Reps.

Dummies or plain out refusal to see it?

It's one sided when the other side can't call their witness like the members of the DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa a well known Trump hater.

 

[Ringel05]

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

 

[debbiedowner]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

 

[progressive hunter]

"Don't worry about those blindfolds you're wearing, we'll continue to spoon feed you all of your favorite fantasies."
That's what you're doing to yourself, it's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

You know better than to ask me that question. Or at least you should, I'm not pro Trump, never have been. But then again individual political ideology can blind even the smartest people, pull your blinders off.
Show me real evidence not "this is how I see it" evidence, "so and so told me" (second hand, not admissible in court) evidence, etc.

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

thats exactly what 2nd hand info is,,,
since the beginning of this country 2nd hand info is seldom considered in court and most time thrown out as hear say,,,,

you clearly are not qualified to discuss this issue,,,,

Testifying to what was actually said to you is not second hand. A witness might not know if what was said to him is true,(that would be the second hand part) but he can certainly testify about what was said to him. Further proof is required to show if what was said to him was a lie or the truth. Lots of evidence in court hinges on that difference. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen that play out in court many times. Testifying to the words that are actually said to you is not second hand.

in that case I want to testify that a guy told me biden was guilty as fuck,,,
now that wouldnt be 2nd hand info would it??

 

[BULLDOG]

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

I don't think Trump's or Clinton's behavior has much to do with our discussion about what is acceptable in court, and what is not. Everybody has biases, but honorable people will tell the truth when giving sworn testimony. Are you saying Taylor lied about what was said to him? Did his bias somehow cause him to hear different words than what was said to him?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

You know better than to ask me that question. Or at least you should, I'm not pro Trump, never have been. But then again individual political ideology can blind even the smartest people, pull your blinders off.
Show me real evidence not "this is how I see it" evidence, "so and so told me" (second hand, not admissible in court) evidence, etc.

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

thats exactly what 2nd hand info is,,,
since the beginning of this country 2nd hand info is seldom considered in court and most time thrown out as hear say,,,,

you clearly are not qualified to discuss this issue,,,,

Testifying to what was actually said to you is not second hand. A witness might not know if what was said to him is true,(that would be the second hand part) but he can certainly testify about what was said to him. Further proof is required to show if what was said to him was a lie or the truth. Lots of evidence in court hinges on that difference. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen that play out in court many times. Testifying to the words that are actually said to you is not second hand.

in that case I want to testify that a guy told me biden was guilty as fuck,,,
now that wouldnt be 2nd hand info would it??

I have no reason to believe someone didn't say that to you. Idiots have told me the same thing. That is first hand testimony. His claim that Biden is guilty as fuck would be 2nd hand.

 

[Ringel05]

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

I don't think Trump's or Clinton's behavior has much to do with our discussion about what is acceptable in court, and what is not. Everybody has biases, but honorable people will tell the truth when giving sworn testimony. Are you saying Taylor lied about what was said to him? Did his bias somehow cause him to hear different words than what was said to him?

Lie or hear (interpret) what was or wasn't said is entirely possible, happens all the time. Heck this board is evidence of that which is why I will reserve judgement, i.e. not convict because I want it to be so......... If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty then so be it, if not then so be it also, either way the partisan hacks will most likely scream bloody murder.

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

I don't think Trump's or Clinton's behavior has much to do with our discussion about what is acceptable in court, and what is not. Everybody has biases, but honorable people will tell the truth when giving sworn testimony. Are you saying Taylor lied about what was said to him? Did his bias somehow cause him to hear different words than what was said to him?

Lie or hear (interpret) what was or wasn't said is entirely possible, happens all the time. Heck this board is evidence of that which is why I will reserve judgement, i.e. not convict because I want it to be so......... If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty then so be it, if not then so be it also, either way the partisan hacks will most likely scream bloody murder.

Rebolara and run. That's OK . I gotta go too.

 

[Ringel05]

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

I don't think Trump's or Clinton's behavior has much to do with our discussion about what is acceptable in court, and what is not. Everybody has biases, but honorable people will tell the truth when giving sworn testimony. Are you saying Taylor lied about what was said to him? Did his bias somehow cause him to hear different words than what was said to him?

Lie or hear (interpret) what was or wasn't said is entirely possible, happens all the time. Heck this board is evidence of that which is why I will reserve judgement, i.e. not convict because I want it to be so......... If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty then so be it, if not then so be it also, either way the partisan hacks will most likely scream bloody murder.

Rebolara and run. That's OK . I gotta go too.

Nah, I just finished putting together my first ice cream cake, it's gonna look like hell but who cares it's didn't cost me $30 - $50 bucks.......

 

[Ringel05]

Got it. You see this discussion going south, so it's time for some silly. Go ahead. It's not important for me to actually nail jello to the wall. It's enough to see I can.

Stop the bull shit, what I said wasn't silly, I was making a distinct point and that was humans have human biases and act accordingly particularly if they're not aware that those biases are coloring their decisions/actions. No one is immune, even those of us who are keenly aware of their existence though we do have a leg up on the rest of humanity, we can typically recognize our own and at least try to counter them.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination and you should know that by now. Hell I even "defended" Obama on numerous occasions and got slammed by the hard righties for it.

I don't think Trump's or Clinton's behavior has much to do with our discussion about what is acceptable in court, and what is not. Everybody has biases, but honorable people will tell the truth when giving sworn testimony. Are you saying Taylor lied about what was said to him? Did his bias somehow cause him to hear different words than what was said to him?

Lie or hear (interpret) what was or wasn't said is entirely possible, happens all the time. Heck this board is evidence of that which is why I will reserve judgement, i.e. not convict because I want it to be so......... If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty then so be it, if not then so be it also, either way the partisan hacks will most likely scream bloody murder.

Rebolara and run. That's OK . I gotta go too.

Nah, I just finished putting together my first ice cream cake, it's gonna look like hell but who cares it's didn't cost me $30 - $50 bucks.......

Turtle sunday ice cream cake.......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Testifying to the words said to him is not second hand, and since when has second hand information not been acceptable in court? Having a boxed set of all the old Perry Mason shows on VHS is not the same as actually knowing the rules of the court.

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Taylor was hand picked by Pompeo to be ambassador.