Televised Impeachment Inquiry Nov. 13th. I invite ATS members to utilize this thread

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: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

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: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

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.

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.

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.

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

No, it is not. Although not a criminal trial, it still makes this whole thing look silly.

originally posted by: MrRCflying

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

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: 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.

Properly? According to whom? Not the rules, that the Republicans changed in 2015.
The House has the sole power to impeach, and the House sets the rules.

a reply to: Wayfarer

So, basically, no one yet has testified to firsthand knowledge of a quid pro quo, at least a couple of people have testified that Trump told Sondland NO quid pro quo, Ukraine wasn't aware of the hold on military aide until they read it in a media report weeks after the phone call, and the military aide was released without any of the supposed demands being fulfilled.

I'm sorry but it should take more than hearsay, assumptions, presumption, opinions, and policy difference to remove a sitting president, of any party.

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

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.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

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....

Hearsay falls under without a shadow of doubt....thats what we mean. You dont convict someone based on that alone.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I know u are being funny...

I don’t talk about myself… Not on the Internet… I will say this…

My wife was Phi Beta Kappa undergrad In Plan II(U can look it up)
Alpha Omega Alpha at a top 5 medical school(acuity and volume wise) in the country and we have been married since medical school over 2 decades ago.
We both love school with an intense fervor and both are highly competitive—- though with kind, Texan sensibilities...

Her resume is a sufficient indicator of who I am....s
Smeone like her wouldn’t spend 2 decades+ with a fool(I don’t reckon)....
And she definitely didn’t marry me for my looks or money(At the time for sure ha)

But I make it a point to never discus myself because it opens way too many doors…
Her resume should suffice

Hope that helps

-Chris

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

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.

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.

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.

There we are, it's all about feelings. You feel he's evil... let's lock him up!

Yes nunes is rigfht to discuss how democrats are ignoring ukranian interference.

Yes hes right, if there was meddling, trump had a duty to investigate it.

Ouch, Mr. Nunes should have adjusted his statements and questioning after the opening statements and first round of questioning, but Mr. "Suing a fake cow" Nunes never shown to be that smart.

a reply to: yuppa

Hearsay is part of the admissible evidence. While it alone may not be enough to convict, more solid evidence is (usually) uncovered after a preponderance of hearsay evidence is made available. This is not unusual.

Let the bumbling from Taylor begin!

a reply to: JesperA

I am not familiar with American laws but it is usual to convict someone based on interpretation of what another person "might" think?

Absolutely. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal indictment. If Congress deems that a president has acted inappropriately, and has brought shame on the office, they can impeach on that alone.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Now you're just being hyperbolic because you don't have a good response.

If you feel like focusing on my opinion of Trump gives your argument (or rather lack thereof) any weight then I feel like there really isn't much for you and I to discuss.....

This is becoming to look bad for the democrats though if you want my spin on it. Not sure how the democarts thought this impeachment publicly would have being in their favor, maybe because they have media allies? even with that i still see no wrong doing by Trump.