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

[S.J.]

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

No it isn't, it's a lynching. Why should any Republican hold the rope for them?

 

[MAGAman]

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

Plenty of hurt feelings.

No evidence.

 

[jc456]

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....

yet you never answered the legal question of HOW "hearsay" evidence is valid in this instance. you went off blithering out some other non-related shit that you like to give me grief for doing.

the D's said "heresay is good - better than actual!" - now back that statement up of HOW is it "better" and legally permissible or simply say it was a stupid statement on their part.

your call but i'm not chasing your rabbits.

hearsay in this case is - he did NOT see this directly, he "heard" about it. sorry that was difficult for you to grasp.

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

i don't think it is better than interviewing Mulveney or Pompeo or the VP or Bolton under oath....

we'd rather have these people testifying, but they are being held back by the president.

Second hand witnesses in investigations, lead to first hand witnesses and evidence... they help show the full picture from all people affected... they are not better than first hand, they support first hand...

as example, Mulveney was told to hold back the money till Trump got his and Giuliani's ''investigations''

if the money was never held back by Mulveney, then these witnesses yesterday, who had first hand knowledge from the Ukranians that the money was not being held back and they got it, then Mulveney stating such, would be debunked.

But the money was being held back, they knew this first hand.... and testified to such. Mulveney stating such to them, can not be debunked by them... because the aid money WAS being withheld.

no, this isn't an investigation. When only one side does something when two participate isn't an investigation, it's a kangaroo court.

 

[MAGAman]

What is the specific crime that Trump committed?

The "Guns for Dirt" plot was an extortion plot involving US aid and soliciting foreign aid in generating dirt to use against domestic political rivals.

Is that crime serious enough to justify impeachment?

Yes.

You have no evidence of extortion, nobody that says they heard extortion, a transcript that proves no extortion, and the alleged victim says it didn't happen. Other than that you've got a good case.

Fascist Democrats can impeach Trump for kicking Hillary's ass to the curb. And you can cheer the Fascists on.

 

[jc456]

What is the specific crime that Trump committed?

The "Guns for Dirt" plot was an extortion plot involving US aid and soliciting foreign aid in generating dirt to use against domestic political rivals.

Is that crime serious enough to justify impeachment?

Yes.

guns for dirt? Wait, Ukraine was buying guns, it was their money, so you're saying the PM was asking for guns for dirt? He presented the idea? you're confused. All you need to do is highlight the supposed deal.

 

[OldLady]

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.

? I heard nothing like that.

Speaking factually can be seen as anti-Trump...especially if you use complete sentences and big words....very frightening to a Trumper

I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you have anything other than rhetorical questions?

Sure. the rules stipulate that the witnesses called must be relevant to the proceedings. Hunter has not been accused of anything by the DOJ or in The Ukraine.

Schiff won't allow ANY witnesses to be called that might interfere with the lynching.

What's next? Calling Joe, Crowdstrike and all the others named in the crazy Russian based conspiracy theory Ghouli is peddling? What is the White House hiding? Mayor Ghoul needs to testify.

 

[BlindBoo]

When only one side does something when two participate isn't an investigation, it's a kangaroo court.

I see, since no one from the Democrat side was along with Ghouliani during his "investigation", it is obvious now that they wanted be bring the matter to the Kangaroo Court, where Donnie is King. Thanks for bringing that up.

President "Captain Kangaroo" Trump.

Furthermore, the committees all had Republican members with full rights, equal time to question the witnesses during the closed door sessions.

 

[Care4all]

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

No it isn't, it's a lynching. Why should any Republican hold the rope for them?

Why do you believe that?

 

[jc456]

When only one side does something when two participate isn't an investigation, it's a kangaroo court.

I see, since no one from the Democrat side was along with Ghouliani during his "investigation", it is obvious now that they wanted be bring the matter to the Kangaroo Court, where Donnie is King. Thanks for bringing that up.

President "Captain Kangaroo" Trump.

Furthermore, the committees all had Republican members with full rights, equal time to question the witnesses during the closed door sessions.

who was with mueller?

 

[BlindBoo]

All you need to do is highlight the supposed deal.

Make it clear to the new president of Ukraine that he ain't getting the goods until he gets in the box and plays ball by publicly announcing that the Ukraine is opening an investigation into the Bidens, Crowstrike and the server.

 

[mudwhistle]

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??

Horseshit.
Prove your God Damned case first.

Then we can think about questioning the administration

 

[jc456]

All you need to do is highlight the supposed deal.

Make it clear to the new president of Ukraine that he ain't getting the goods until he gets in the box and plays ball by publicly announcing that the Ukraine is opening an investigation into the Bidens, Crowstrike and the server.

well that didn't happen. the PM said so. are you calling him a liar? go for it stud!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

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!

What if what they're claiming is pure rubbish??

Are you gonna believe anything and everything, or are you going to look at the big picture?

Nope.

You want the crap they're claiming to be true. It doesn't matter if it is or not at this point when it comes to fake claims by people who made it clear from day one that they wanted to impeach Trump.

 

[BlindBoo]

When only one side does something when two participate isn't an investigation, it's a kangaroo court.

I see, since no one from the Democrat side was along with Ghouliani during his "investigation", it is obvious now that they wanted be bring the matter to the Kangaroo Court, where Donnie is King. Thanks for bringing that up.

President "Captain Kangaroo" Trump.

Furthermore, the committees all had Republican members with full rights, equal time to question the witnesses during the closed door sessions.

who was with mueller?

I thought you guys love Mueller's Report?

 

[jc456]

When only one side does something when two participate isn't an investigation, it's a kangaroo court.

I see, since no one from the Democrat side was along with Ghouliani during his "investigation", it is obvious now that they wanted be bring the matter to the Kangaroo Court, where Donnie is King. Thanks for bringing that up.

President "Captain Kangaroo" Trump.

Furthermore, the committees all had Republican members with full rights, equal time to question the witnesses during the closed door sessions.

who was with mueller?

I thought you guys love Mueller's Report?

what's that have to do with who was with who?

 

[iceberg]

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....

yet you never answered the legal question of HOW "hearsay" evidence is valid in this instance. you went off blithering out some other non-related shit that you like to give me grief for doing.

the D's said "heresay is good - better than actual!" - now back that statement up of HOW is it "better" and legally permissible or simply say it was a stupid statement on their part.

your call but i'm not chasing your rabbits.

hearsay in this case is - he did NOT see this directly, he "heard" about it. sorry that was difficult for you to grasp.

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

i don't think it is better than interviewing Mulveney or Pompeo or the VP or Bolton under oath....

we'd rather have these people testifying, but they are being held back by the president.

Second hand witnesses in investigations, lead to first hand witnesses and evidence... they help show the full picture from all people affected... they are not better than first hand, they support first hand...

as example, Mulveney was told to hold back the money till Trump got his and Giuliani's ''investigations''

if the money was never held back by Mulveney, then these witnesses yesterday, who had first hand knowledge from the Ukranians that the money was not being held back and they got it, then Mulveney stating such, would be debunked.

But the money was being held back, they knew this first hand.... and testified to such. Mulveney stating such to them, can not be debunked by them... because the aid money WAS being withheld.

Democratic lawmaker: Hearsay evidence 'can be much better' than direct in some cases

"I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay," Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."
---
then your boy needs to tone down the "courts allow this" if just an "investigation". he's setting up using 2nd hand or later info and you're swallowing like a $5 hooker at a vegas shriners convention.

and i'm not reading the rest of your inane bullshit.

 

[S.J.]

Sure. the rules stipulate that the witnesses called must be relevant to the proceedings. Hunter has not been accused of anything by the DOJ or in The Ukraine.

Hunter is absolutely relevant, and it's not a "preceding", it's an inquiry. Biden stopped the investigation of corruption regarding Ukraine. That's what the impeachment is supposed to be based on. Why are you afraid to get everything out in the open?

 

[jc456]

Sure. the rules stipulate that the witnesses called must be relevant to the proceedings. Hunter has not been accused of anything by the DOJ or in The Ukraine.

Hunter is absolutely relevant, and it's not a "preceding", it's an inquiry. Biden stopped the investigation of corruption regarding Ukraine. That's what the impeachment is supposed to be based on. Why are you afraid to get everything out in the open?

cause he's a fkwad with no dignity or resemblance of fairness.

 

[S.J.]

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

No it isn't, it's a lynching. Why should any Republican hold the rope for them?

Why do you believe that?

Um, maybe because it's been one bullshit conspiracy theory after the next thrown at the President since he was elected, not to mention comments by many Democrats expressing the desire to impeach him (before he was even inaugurated). The so-called whistleblower's attorney saying "The coup has begun, impeachment will follow". Spying on his campaign, emails between FBI agents exposing their illegal activities aimed at framing Trump, Schiff's repeated lies about having proof of collusion, or not knowing who the "whistleblower" is. Then there's the fact that there's been absolutely NO evidence of any impeachable offenses by Trump. Yesterday's circus showed you that, you just don't want to see it or admit it.