It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WayfarerA preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.
Pretty simple.
A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
of course you don’t, because it’s more comforting to listen to some former diplomat say someone intimated to another person such and such and that’s clearly of course! Hahaha what a circus.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.
Pretty simple.
We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......
A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
originally posted by: JesperA
originally posted by: WayfarerA preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
I am not familiar with American laws but it is usual to convict someone based on interpretation of what another person "might" think?
Seems like a really low bar, then we can start to convict anyone for anything, i interpret your post that i quoted that you want to murder your neighbour, thats how i interpret it so lets go to court and base a conviction of my skewed interpretation of what i believe you are thinking, good luck in jail
originally posted by: MrRCflying
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.
Pretty simple.
A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
I just about spit my covfefe all over my keyboard! What evidence? Not "feelings", not "assumptions", not "hearsay".
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Sookiechacha
To do it properly, the Representatives would poll their constituents and vote accordingly. But that ship sank a very, very, very long time ago. At this point just voting party lines is a miracle anymore.
hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
Similar:rumor gossip tittle-tattle tattle idle chatter idle talk mere talk report stories tales tidbits bavardage on dit Kaffeeklatsch labrish shu-shu buzz the grapevine goss scuttlebutt furphy skinder bruit
Opposite:confirmed facts
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: MrRCflying
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.
Pretty simple.
A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
I just about spit my covfefe all over my keyboard! What evidence? Not "feelings", not "assumptions", not "hearsay".
Hearsay testimony is admissible evidence. As I said in my post above, I can't figure out where you and your compatriots got info that it wasn't....
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
of course you don’t, because it’s more comforting to listen to some former diplomat say someone intimated to another person such and such and that’s clearly of course! Hahaha what a circus.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.
Pretty simple.
We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......
A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.
I'm not comforted at all man. I am disturbed by what I'm hearing. I've always felt Trump is an evil awful man, and its disturbing to think I may have held too high an opinion of him.
I am not familiar with American laws but it is usual to convict someone based on interpretation of what another person "might" think?