McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[colfax_m]

You say I can't put together a well sourced post and then admit that you ignore my posts. So yeah, you're talking out your ass.

You specifically taunted me into putting together a reply about Clinton's emails, which I did, and you ignored.

Why the hell should I reply to your taunts if you just ignore me? Give me one good reason.

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

 

[colfax_m]

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

it can be proven in court.

why didn't the left do it vs. call people who simply "heard" or gave their "guess" on what trump did / was doing?

why didn't we call witnesses for trump to say he was doing something else? this was NOT what he was doing? you're not interested in being fair nor equal justice, you're pissed at trump and don't care how badly you come across to show it.

"We" did call a lot of witnesses that were blocked. In a fair trial, those witnesses would have been heard. This was not a fair trial.

 

[iceberg]

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

 

[iceberg]

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

it can be proven in court.

why didn't the left do it vs. call people who simply "heard" or gave their "guess" on what trump did / was doing?

why didn't we call witnesses for trump to say he was doing something else? this was NOT what he was doing? you're not interested in being fair nor equal justice, you're pissed at trump and don't care how badly you come across to show it.

"We" did call a lot of witnesses that were blocked. In a fair trial, those witnesses would have been heard. This was not a fair trial.

and the left blocked 16 of their own. don't give me the crap one set of reasons is better than another. i ain't hunting with that dog. ever.

this is not a fair trial because the charges themselves were never fair nor proven. it was never intended to be a fair trial but more damage to trump that they could inflict.

you ever stop and ask yourself why the radical left doesn't put as much energy into building a platform vs. tearing down someone elses?

 

[Cecilie1200]

when I asked for any court case where someone was found guilty due to circumstantial evidence, you failed to do it. 6 times.

sorry I have up but that shows you won't back up what you say.

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

So are you saying that I touted Dershowitz as an expert whose word should just be accepted on something? Could you cite me when and where I did that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

it can be proven in court.

why didn't the left do it vs. call people who simply "heard" or gave their "guess" on what trump did / was doing?

why didn't we call witnesses for trump to say he was doing something else? this was NOT what he was doing? you're not interested in being fair nor equal justice, you're pissed at trump and don't care how badly you come across to show it.

"We" did call a lot of witnesses that were blocked. In a fair trial, those witnesses would have been heard. This was not a fair trial.

You watch too much "Law & Order".

 

[colfax_m]

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

 

[Zorro!]

Face it Zorro you and your ilk have brought our great country to its knees You've shat on our constitution and like pigs you love getting dirty

No. We have defended the Constituion against the House's attempt to place themselves above the Law.

A trial without witnesses Why get to the real truth ?

then why did the left reject up to 16 of them?

my answer is they didn't want the real truth. i'm sure yours is "they would have lied" or some bullshit like this.

My eyes have really been opened since 2016

I had no idea that half the country did not understand how we elected Presidents in this country.
For weeks, on another site, one semi Intelligent member fought for the idea that a President had to be
Dually elected - as in the dual wins of the Popular vote and the EC or they weren't really President.
No matter how many times I stated that it was "duly" - she could not get it.

Now they don't know how trials are done - or what the word "additional" means.

As it the vote was not to add ADDITIONAL witnesses.

bottom line is if you don't give them want they want NOW you're denying them something they "deserve".

so tired of that mindset.

Yes. But, we have stand up to their antics or they will just get worse. They make unreasonable demands and then attack anyone or anything that refused them. No one likes to take a firm stand and say no to an unreasonable demand, especially when this will immediately result in yet another conflict, but, we all see what happens when we give to these folks, it inflames them and their demands become even more unreasonable and their tone more strident.

 

[iceberg]

If you know of no court case where this has happened then why do you keep saying it happens? quoting someone with a recognizable name is NOT proof it happens.

so does this mean you'll stop saying circumstantial evidence is good enough?

your inability or lack of desire to back up what you say is why I ignore toy so much.

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

 

[iceberg]

No. We have defended the Constituion against the House's attempt to place themselves above the Law.

A trial without witnesses Why get to the real truth ?

then why did the left reject up to 16 of them?

my answer is they didn't want the real truth. i'm sure yours is "they would have lied" or some bullshit like this.

My eyes have really been opened since 2016

I had no idea that half the country did not understand how we elected Presidents in this country.
For weeks, on another site, one semi Intelligent member fought for the idea that a President had to be
Dually elected - as in the dual wins of the Popular vote and the EC or they weren't really President.
No matter how many times I stated that it was "duly" - she could not get it.

Now they don't know how trials are done - or what the word "additional" means.

As it the vote was not to add ADDITIONAL witnesses.

bottom line is if you don't give them want they want NOW you're denying them something they "deserve".

so tired of that mindset.

Yes. But, we have stand up to their antics or they will just get worse. They make unreasonable demands and then attack anyone or anything the tells them no. No one likes to take a firm stand and say no to an unreasonable demand, especially when this will immediately result in yet another conflict, but, we all see what happens when we give to these folks, it inflames them and their demands become even more unreasonable and their tone more strident.

the left in my mind are acting like children.

taking on children using their own tactics, we'll i've never seen that work well. for example, one saturday morning many years ago, a mother and her screaming child seemed to be following me aisle after aisle. so i moved to the OTHER end of the store to get away from the screaming she had zero intention of dealing with.

they followed me. so what did i do? i screamed at the child. the child looked at me in shock. the mother got pissed. i screamed at her.

then i just left. no one needs groceries that bad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

Or at the very least, demand they withdraw from the presidential contest.

 

[iceberg]

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

Or at the very least, demand they withdraw from the presidential contest.

agreed. if trump were to do any number of things that scream GUILTY by trying to hide/destroy evidence from even being looked at, i'd be furious.

but he's not done that. so far he and the left are simply taking turns saying NO to any given witness.

 

[colfax_m]

and the left blocked 16 of their own. don't give me the crap one set of reasons is better than another. i ain't hunting with that dog. ever.

How many of those blocked witnesses were capable of giving us first hand information about Trump’s actions and state of mind?

this is not a fair trial because the charges themselves were never fair nor proven. it was never intended to be a fair trial but more damage to trump that they could inflict.

It wasn’t a fair trial because the charges weren’t proven? Do you understand that charges are proven at trial? A fair trial includes all relevant witnesses and impartial jurors. That didn’t happen here. No one can deny that.

you ever stop and ask yourself why the radical left doesn't put as much energy into building a platform vs. tearing down someone elses?

Why would I ask myself that when Democrats have a platform.

Party Platform - Democrats

Both parties attack the other’s platform. That’s politics.

 

[San Souci]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

I have a tough time believing any of this matters to voters at this point. Trump is the most polarizing President in the history of historical histories, and I suspect people's minds are made up.
.

I agree it does not matter, nobody will change their mind during this performance. But those in charge want it dragged out for a while longer, wonder what it is we are not supposed to pay attention to.

The testimony will be judged by history and by voters in November

Seems to be decided.

 

[iceberg]

and the left blocked 16 of their own. don't give me the crap one set of reasons is better than another. i ain't hunting with that dog. ever.

How many of those blocked witnesses were capable of giving us first hand information about Trump’s actions and state of mind?

this is not a fair trial because the charges themselves were never fair nor proven. it was never intended to be a fair trial but more damage to trump that they could inflict.

It wasn’t a fair trial because the charges weren’t proven? Do you understand that charges are proven at trial? A fair trial includes all relevant witnesses and impartial jurors. That didn’t happen here. No one can deny that.

you ever stop and ask yourself why the radical left doesn't put as much energy into building a platform vs. tearing down someone elses?

Why would I ask myself that when Democrats have a platform.

Party Platform - Democrats

Both parties attack the other’s platform. That’s politics.

dunno. they were blocked.

we could have called the whistleblower but that was not allowed and schiff was making up rules and laws as to why. or are you saying the whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge? please, say that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

how come you're ok with schiff making up laws as he goes and his own refusal to answer to them? why is THIS whistleblower suddenly afforded rights not seen before?

again - i'd be willing to listen to complaints against trump if the left would quit rewriting the rulebook to suit their purposes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

Or at the very least, demand they withdraw from the presidential contest.

agreed. if trump were to do any number of things that scream GUILTY by trying to hide/destroy evidence from even being looked at, i'd be furious.

but he's not done that. so far he and the left are simply taking turns saying NO to any given witness.

If Trump did half of the things Hillary did, I believe most Republicans would ask him to not seek reelection. They wouldn't support him financially either.

They complained making the claim that Trump revealed classified material to Putin, but the President is allowed to declassify anything he wants. Hillary on the other hand was sending classified information to Ummmma, and her husband used that same computer to send nude pictures of himself to strange women all over the world. The Democrats had no problem with that. In fact, they voted for her to be President.

To add insult to injury, the FBI destroyed that laptop Ummmmma was using. Then it was reported that they never really looked at all the emails on that laptop.

 

[iceberg]

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

Or at the very least, demand they withdraw from the presidential contest.

agreed. if trump were to do any number of things that scream GUILTY by trying to hide/destroy evidence from even being looked at, i'd be furious.

but he's not done that. so far he and the left are simply taking turns saying NO to any given witness.

If Trump did half of the things Hillary did, I believe most Republicans would ask him to not seek reelection. They wouldn't support him financially either.

They complained making the claim that Trump revealed classified material to Putin, but the President is allowed to declassify anything he wants. Hillary on the other hand was sending classified information to Ummmma, and her husband used that same computer to send nude pictures of himself to strange women all over the world. The Democrats had no problem with that. In fact, they voted for her to be President.

To add insult to injury, the FBI destroyed that laptop Ummmmma was using. Then it was reported that they never really looked at all the emails on that laptop.

if he did half i'd be pushing hard for Tulsi. i'd be agreeing he needs to go. if you accuse someone of child porn on their hard drive and they format / destroy it before the police gets there, that's a HUGE flag.

but they couldn't delete their traffic through their ISP so they'd still be screwed.

 

[colfax_m]

Because I don’t keep a list of court cases in my back pocket. I have a statement from a prosecutor that says they use circumstantial evidence to prove intent in cases. That’s called citing a source. It’s perfectly sufficient.

Sorry you disagree but it’s not different than what anyone else around here would do.

I think you’re holding me to a different standard because you’re a jerk.

Keep me on ignore. I have no use for trying to talk to someone who is a liar and an asshole who can’t have an adult discussion or an honest debate.

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

Intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence. I’ve provided you two sources that make that claim. Are you going to now ask for a third?

I don’t find you to be very objective so I won’t test your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you’re driven by animus towards Democrats. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

My point stands that your need for “direct” or “documented” evidence to prove an intent is a bit absurd and could rarely be reached. Adhering to your standard seems like to would be havoc in a court or law.

As for your allegations against Clinton, people wanted Comey to pursue charges based on circumstantial evidence. It seems you perhaps would agree with them, but I’d want to hear it from you to be sure.

Clinton didn’t delete emails under subpoena. Her technician did. Smashing phones isn’t illegal. Wiping hard drives isn’t illegal. That’s what you do with devices that are end of life. I’ve drilled holes in laptop hard drives that I was recycling to avoid them from getting any of my information.

You need to demonstrate first that Clinton had any part in those actions and that she intended to evade oversight by doing so.

So we could go with your standard that demands we find documentary evidence that Clinton said “destroy the devices so that Congress can’t subpoena them”.

Or we could go by rational standard and use circumstantial evidence. There was indeed circumstantial evidence Clinton attempted to evade oversight. However, circumstantial evidence requires that if there is a rational explanation that does not demonstrate guilt, you have to go with that. The rational explanation for Clinton’s use of a private server is that it was more convenient. Therefore you have to assume this is the correct explanation.

 

[colfax_m]

and the left blocked 16 of their own. don't give me the crap one set of reasons is better than another. i ain't hunting with that dog. ever.

How many of those blocked witnesses were capable of giving us first hand information about Trump’s actions and state of mind?

this is not a fair trial because the charges themselves were never fair nor proven. it was never intended to be a fair trial but more damage to trump that they could inflict.

It wasn’t a fair trial because the charges weren’t proven? Do you understand that charges are proven at trial? A fair trial includes all relevant witnesses and impartial jurors. That didn’t happen here. No one can deny that.

you ever stop and ask yourself why the radical left doesn't put as much energy into building a platform vs. tearing down someone elses?

Why would I ask myself that when Democrats have a platform.

Party Platform - Democrats

Both parties attack the other’s platform. That’s politics.

dunno. they were blocked.

we could have called the whistleblower but that was not allowed and schiff was making up rules and laws as to why. or are you saying the whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge? please, say that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

how come you're ok with schiff making up laws as he goes and his own refusal to answer to them? why is THIS whistleblower suddenly afforded rights not seen before?

again - i'd be willing to listen to complaints against trump if the left would quit rewriting the rulebook to suit their purposes.

The whistleblower didn’t have first hand information. Why would I say anything else? I never claimed he did. He never claimed he did.

Which blocked witness had the capability of giving first hand information to Trump’s thinking or statements? Give me one example.

 

[iceberg]

while I may be a jerk, I wouldn't say something based off 1 persons quote.

if that makes me a jerk, fine.

it makes you a fucking idiot.

Google. Google shit when in question. Instead you repeat what you like as fact and get dick dented when called out.

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

Intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence. I’ve provided you two sources that make that claim. Are you going to now ask for a third?

I don’t find you to be very objective so I won’t test your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you’re driven by animus towards Democrats. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

My point stands that your need for “direct” or “documented” evidence to prove an intent is a bit absurd and could rarely be reached. Adhering to your standard seems like to would be havoc in a court or law.

As for your allegations against Clinton, people wanted Comey to pursue charges based on circumstantial evidence. It seems you perhaps would agree with them, but I’d want to hear it from you to be sure.

Clinton didn’t delete emails under subpoena. Her technician did. Smashing phones isn’t illegal. Wiping hard drives isn’t illegal. That’s what you do with devices that are end of life. I’ve drilled holes in laptop hard drives that I was recycling to avoid them from getting any of my information.

You need to demonstrate first that Clinton had any part in those actions and that she intended to evade oversight by doing so.

So we could go with your standard that demands we find documentary evidence that Clinton said “destroy the devices so that Congress can’t subpoena them”.

Or we could go by rational standard and use circumstantial evidence. There was indeed circumstantial evidence Clinton attempted to evade oversight. However, circumstantial evidence requires that if there is a rational explanation that does not demonstrate guilt, you have to go with that. The rational explanation for Clinton’s use of a private server is that it was more convenient. Therefore you have to assume this is the correct explanation.

great. then if intent can be proven, why was it not done so for hillary with so much more to PROVE it?

until you're interested in equal application of these standards, best you're going to get from me is sarcasm.

and if you believe her technician did all this w/o her approval, knowledge or orders, then you know fully understand why i laugh at you.

bitch kills people for looking at her sideways.

now just stop looking for a reply from me cause we ain't playing in the same reality. no sense in torturing either of us anymore.

whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge. lord people just shit stupid like diarrhea after drinking mexican water.