-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Hearsay is not enough. This guy heard something from that guy doesn't prove anything. Trump asking an ally to look at what happened in 2016 isn't extortion.
Not only that, Trump is either a genius that perfectly edits his statements to avoid incriminating himself, or he's the worst extortionist of all time since he raised aid given over previous administrations without Ukrainian follow through.
Maybe the next witness will actually have substantial evidence beyond speculation.
Not only that, Trump is either a genius that perfectly edits his statements to avoid incriminating himself, or he's the worst extortionist of all time since he raised aid given over previous administrations without Ukrainian follow through.
Maybe the next witness will actually have substantial evidence beyond speculation.
-
1
- Show all
First this is not an actual court case so my understanding is that evidentiary laws don’t apply. Second, if evidentiary laws did apply hearsay could be admissible given certain witnesses not making themselves available to testify.
Most important today was not about hearsay. There was testimony of 1st hand knowledge of $ being withheld. Taylor knew the $ was withheld. Taylor testified to the fact this was done to the detriment of US stated policy. We also have Trump’s memo of the phone call asking for the investigation into Biden. We have his CoS going on national TV admitting they do this all the time. His words “Get over it”
Most important today was not about hearsay. There was testimony of 1st hand knowledge of $ being withheld. Taylor knew the $ was withheld. Taylor testified to the fact this was done to the detriment of US stated policy. We also have Trump’s memo of the phone call asking for the investigation into Biden. We have his CoS going on national TV admitting they do this all the time. His words “Get over it”
What we saw today was thin speculation. Money was withheld and speculation about why that is proves no wrongdoing.
This is empty-headed crap. Somehow I expected there to be at least one time today that I would be impressed by the evidence.
I'm not against impeaching a president, but I require a bit more actually evidence to get there.
Neither side looked like more than desperate hacks today. This is what my tax dollars pay for.
This is empty-headed crap. Somehow I expected there to be at least one time today that I would be impressed by the evidence.
I'm not against impeaching a president, but I require a bit more actually evidence to get there.
Neither side looked like more than desperate hacks today. This is what my tax dollars pay for.
-
3
- Show all
Lololol
I learned today that:
"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"
--- Senator Mike Quigley
The Democrats determined the process, selected the witnesses and made the rules, and this is the best they can do!? I really dislike Trump but it's time for me to go get a MAGA hat.
I learned today that:
"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"
--- Senator Mike Quigley
The Democrats determined the process, selected the witnesses and made the rules, and this is the best they can do!? I really dislike Trump but it's time for me to go get a MAGA hat.
Last edited:
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Both of your posts are based on logic that falls apart under a little scrutiny.
First, the US (either the President, SOS, VP, Ambassadors and others) both Democrats and Republicans have denied or threatened to deny aid to foreign governments many times for a variety of reasons in the past. It is not illegal. Second, Trump didn't tie the aid to the request, he merely asked them to investigate corruption in their own country. Read the transcript: he did not make any reference to withholding aid in the conversation. The aid was transferred as scheduled. By the way, quid pro quo was first used by the Dems and then dropped because their own witnesses said there was none.
By your definition what Biden did would also be bribery and extortion. You can't have it both ways; either Biden is guilty of bribery and extortion, or neither of them are.
First, the US (either the President, SOS, VP, Ambassadors and others) both Democrats and Republicans have denied or threatened to deny aid to foreign governments many times for a variety of reasons in the past. It is not illegal. Second, Trump didn't tie the aid to the request, he merely asked them to investigate corruption in their own country. Read the transcript: he did not make any reference to withholding aid in the conversation. The aid was transferred as scheduled. By the way, quid pro quo was first used by the Dems and then dropped because their own witnesses said there was none.
By your definition what Biden did would also be bribery and extortion. You can't have it both ways; either Biden is guilty of bribery and extortion, or neither of them are.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
