Dork Democrat Says During Hearing That Hearsay Is Better Than Direct Evidence

[ThunderKiss1965]

Holy shit the guy has a Law degree.
Mike Quigley (politician) - Wikipedia

 

[Care4all]

When they have no evidence, and hearsay is all they have, what do you expect the demoncrats to say.

Stop obstructing the investigation and allow first hand subpoenaed witnesses to testify, is the only way to settle it.

Funny how the Rs are screaming about this when THEY are the ones preventing it....

Let's have Mulveney, Giuliani, the 2 Russian Ukrainian American thug partners, Bolton, his assistant, etc and the President testify, they were first hand.....

Do you think Giuliani went rogue, or Sondland went rogue and the President was unaware??

what investigation?

they claim of the president is interferring in foreign policy is stupid.
The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy'
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?
---
so those under that impression and trying to sell it, are liars; or at LEAST very incorrect in their statement. but it gives you a place to hide, doesn't it?

they then say heresay evidence is allowed but didn't define under what parameters, again, giving you a hamburger for lunch to feed others their bullshit.

would deleting 33k mails obstruct investigations?
would illegal FISA warrants lead to incorrect investigations?
would destroying electronic devices that contained this info be destroying evidence?

you dance around and say the right is doing the very things the left did for so long yet now, "this is different".

as for "how did the president NOT KNOW" - careful. obama will be held to that same standard for illegal activities like fast n furious. but wait - that was different, wasn't it?

You really have Clinton derangement syndrome..... Why can't you just stick with the thread topic?

Seek help

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Actually - All "We" have to do is listen to how Donald and his "cronies" committed his crimes. Evidence or no evidence - we can surmise that Trump is tainted goods and abused his power! It's not rocket science. Just sit back and listen!

Huh ?

 

[iceberg]

When they have no evidence, and hearsay is all they have, what do you expect the demoncrats to say.

Stop obstructing the investigation and allow first hand subpoenaed witnesses to testify, is the only way to settle it.

Funny how the Rs are screaming about this when THEY are the ones preventing it....

Let's have Mulveney, Giuliani, the 2 Russian Ukrainian American thug partners, Bolton, his assistant, etc and the President testify, they were first hand.....

Do you think Giuliani went rogue, or Sondland went rogue and the President was unaware??

what investigation?

they claim of the president is interferring in foreign policy is stupid.
The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy'
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?
---
so those under that impression and trying to sell it, are liars; or at LEAST very incorrect in their statement. but it gives you a place to hide, doesn't it?

they then say heresay evidence is allowed but didn't define under what parameters, again, giving you a hamburger for lunch to feed others their bullshit.

would deleting 33k mails obstruct investigations?
would illegal FISA warrants lead to incorrect investigations?
would destroying electronic devices that contained this info be destroying evidence?

you dance around and say the right is doing the very things the left did for so long yet now, "this is different".

as for "how did the president NOT KNOW" - careful. obama will be held to that same standard for illegal activities like fast n furious. but wait - that was different, wasn't it?

You really have Clinton derangement syndrome..... Why can't you just stick with the thread topic?

Seek help

you really have TDS - why can't you just stick to the truth and not make it up as you see fit?

seek help.

as i have said and will continue to say - the behaviors you allow in the past for your benefit will come back to haunt you and yes, i will be there to remind you of the stupid shit done in the name of "my side is better than your side" bullshit.

 

[Penelope]

So put Tramp, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. under oath in the impeachment trials.

After all tramp started the ball rolling. Also release all the documents.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

So put Tramp, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. under oath in the impeachment trials.
After all tramp started the ball rolling.

A few more sicko minorities.... who want to rule the majority......

What are they fighting for?

Gay rights over human rights?
FemiNazi Rights?
The right to murder the unborn?
The right to be the opposite sex?
The rights of ILLEGALS to take whatever they want from those who've worked hard and earned it?
Massive, oppressive government?
A Godless, immoral society?

Most likely it's ALL of the above

Wonderful human beings these Creeps.

 

[OldLady]

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

 

[jc456]

 

[jc456]

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

his entire opening statement.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obstruction of Congress is an impeachable offense. Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

Putin Smiles.

 

[S.J.]

They may not need evidence to impeach him in the House but they're sure as shit gonna need it to convict him in the Senate.
Dems have painted themselves into a corner on this one. They're either gonna have to drop it or go full steam ahead. Either way, the damage is done, the coup has failed and they're gonna pay the price in 2020. This is gonna be great. LOL

 

[mudwhistle]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

You're making shit up now.
And you are fixing to find out that what you call a conspiracy is real events that these people are trying to cover up.
People are going to be indicted and going to prison over this....and it will be people from both parties. Taylor is one of the folks being used to prevent that from happening.

 

[Rambunctious]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

You better have more because imagine this....the dems vote in the house to impeach with no republicans voting for it and a handful of dems voting against it as well....what a laugh that would be....

 

[whitehall]

If it was a republican he would have been laughed out of Washington as the case was dismissed. Not so for democrats.

 

[S.J.]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

 

[iceberg]

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

i've done this with you before and you simply denounce the source or resort to attacks. i had thought/hoped we worked past that but since we disagree on this one, i've been on the receiving end of a lot of your "commentary".

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

 

[Care4all]

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

Tell us what "hearsay" in this case that ''allegedly does not apply'' from either of the two witnesses that testified yesterday, and then we can argue and debate it.

These generalizations do neither of us any good.

As example, it's hearsay that Trump held back the money until Velensky would investigate the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory created by Manafort to protect the Russians with the crowdstrike server garbage....

the money was held back.... no one heard the president say to do such directly, other than Mulveney and his assistant at the OMB, who held back the money and said it was the president who ordered it... everyone else but these two, were told it was being held back by the president, but did not hear the president say it, know the money was held back, and the only person who could direct mulveney to hold back the money IS THE PRESIDENT....

and the witnesses testifying KNOW the money WAS held back because the Ukrainians never received the aid.... until two days after the whistleblower report was made known to Congress....

just because these two did not hear the president say such, on holding back the money and the OMB Director is the only one that got that direction from the President, does not in any way negate the fact that the president and only the president, COULD put a hold on it....

the witnesses testimony confirms that the Ukrainians NEVER GOT the aid to fight off the Russians invading, as passed by congress the previous February....

 

[jc456]

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

i've done this with you before and you simply denounce the source or resort to attacks. i had thought/hoped we worked past that but since we disagree on this one, i've been on the receiving end of a lot of your "commentary".

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

They believe hearsay is better than direct evidence. They show their insanity

 

[BlindBoo]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

 

[S.J.]

This is a joke. All they're doing is parading out Trump haters and asking them to give their opinions, hoping to convince the voters that the transcript says something it doesn't.