Impeachment hearing so far who is winning or losing?

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"It’s not hearsay if I ask you “CynConcepts, what is your opinion of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call” is it?"


Opinions are not facts........Which is why CNN anchors are not journalists........they are opinion hosts.



Opinofact: When someone's opinion get repeated so often that some gullible people believe it is a fact. Standard operating procedure for CNN.

I absolutely agree that opinions are not facts, but it can be a fact that someone has an opinion.

Aside from the sideswipe at CNN, are you asking me or telling me something?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Donald Trump will be impeached.

If that’s a win for anyone, yay.

yeah and hillary was going to win as well ........
you really think the battleground dems are going to go with this weak sauce?
I do not
I don't even think nancy will take a vote now

we don't throw people out of office over 2nd hand rumors

a reply to: Gryphon66

So it LITERALLY doesn’t matter if we heard the call or not, or whether the witnesses heard the call ... WE ALL KNOW WHAT WAS SAID.

Ok..so one more time for me...give me just the important part please. I mean of the transcript. Which part is damning according to you ?

This impeachment is getting ripped apart into dust in the wind.

Even some of my anti Trump friends are quiet about it.

Only thing this sham is some BS that Dems will try to use towards elections.

It’s done. You know it, I know it.

Impeachment hearing so far who is winning or losing?

The American public is losing.

Having to listen to Snip clowns that think their party is so effing special.

a reply to: Veryolduser

Everyone watch this video. This will give you a real clear indication of who is winning.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That is not my claim.

My only argument here in this discussion is that the continual cries that a witness didn't hear the Trump-Zelensky call has nothing to testify to for about etc. are baseless and absurd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s not hearsay if I ask you “CynConcepts, what is your opinion of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call” is it?

Opinions are not factual evidence especially if they were formed by only hearing another's opinion.

The witnesses can relate actual conversations they had and offer why they personally decided to act or not. It gets muddy when they proffer only their opinion on why another did or not act.

This is the mud pit, so I apologize for my TL;DR post.

WE THE PEOPLE are on the losing side here. Now.
I hold hope for the future of WE THE PEOPLE, none for our politicians.

ganjoa

a reply to: CynConcepts

True.

So these witnesses are testifying to both fact and opinion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not really.

First and foremost it's not a real court of LAW.

Second.

The state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant may present evidence to challenge the state’s case.

www.justia.com...

Democrats are not the state.

Democrats are not even close to being a jury of his peers that have been vetted through Voir dire.

There are exclusionary RULES for hearsay.

The only thing the American public got to see is the D's same old standard of public lynchings reminscient of the KKK.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s not hearsay if I ask you “CynConcepts, what is your opinion of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call” is it?

Opinions are not factual evidence especially if they were formed by only hearing another's opinion.

The witnesses can relate actual conversations they had and offer why they personally decided to act or not. It gets muddy when they proffer only their opinion on why another did or not act.

The witnesses seemed to take great pains NOT to assign intent or opine on why other people did or said what they said.
They testified to what they heard or observed.

On to another topic, given everything we have heard thus far, Sondland's public testimony next week should be fascinating.

He is walking a line between defending the President and avoiding perjury charges. I expect a lot of "I don't recall" and his memory being "refreshed" in real-time.

I speculate Sondland's testimony will be the most revealing.

Defendants may move to suppress evidence obtained by police or prosecutors in violation of their constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a criminal case.

Trump's civil liberty was violated.

Because A political HACK blew the 'whistle'.

99% of what's gone on is contempt in a real court of law or outright cirmes.

www.justia.com...

originally posted by: neo96

Democrats are not the state.

Democrats are not even close to being a jury of his peers that have been vetted through Voir dire.

There are exclusionary RULES for hearsay.

The only thing the American public got to see is the D's same old standard of public lynchings reminscient of the KKK.

We are not in trial yet.
That happens if/when the house votes to impeach.

Correct "Democrats are not the state", but the House of representatives is "The State" aka government body/institution and Dems are the Majority.
Ditto that the Senate is "the state" and the GOP are the majority there, but the GOP are not "the state"

On HEARSAY evidence.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is admissible in court, is used all the time and often is pivotal to prosecutions.

There are over 30 very broad exceptions that allow for hearsay evidence.

Since the President has stonewalled all testimony from himself and WH staff, hearsay is admissible.

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.

.....

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
The declarant refuses to testify;
The declarant does not remember;
The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.
If the declarant is deemed to be unavailable, then the following type of evidence can be ruled admissible in court. This includes:

Former testimony;
Statements made under belief of imminent death;
Statements against a person's own interest; and
Statements of personal or family history.
Catchall Exception to the Rule against Hearsay

Finally, the last exception is the so-called "catchall" rule. It provides that evidence of a hearsay statement not included in one of the other exceptions may nevertheless be admitted if it meets these following conditions:

It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
It is offered to help prove a material fact
It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
Its admission would forward the cause of justice
The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence
Defenses Against Hearsay Evidence

If the court admits hearsay evidence under one the exceptions, then the credibility of the person offering the statement may be attacked. This attack must be supported by admissible evidence, but can be prior inconsistent statement, bias, or some other evidence that would show that the declarant has a reason to lie or not to remember accurately.

Is It Just Hearsay, or Actual Evidence? Get Help From a Defense Attorney

If you're facing a criminal trial, there may be several pieces of evidence that the government is relying on for their case. However, that doesn't mean that the evidence is admissible in court. A skilled criminal defense attorney can challenge questionable evidence, such as hearsay statements, and help you prepare your strongest defense.

criminal.findlaw.com...

a reply to: Caractacus

Correct "Democrats are not the state", but the House of representatives is "The State" aka government body/institution and Dems are the Majority.

After their Russia LIES, Their FORD LIES.

They shouldn't be.

It's pretty effing clear whose abused their power.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Veryolduser

The American people are losing.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Everything is going as expected.

The dems are fully vested in and distracted by the sham show.

All while Barr and Durham dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's before unsealing the indictments and commencing the arrests and prosecutions.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Veryolduser

The American people are losing.

All while Barr and Durham dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's before unsealing the indictments and commencing the arrests and prosecutions.

That seems very unlikely IMO.

The only activity and actual indictments regarding this mess Involve Rudy Giuliani's contractors in this shadow diplomacy scheme.

Parnas' lawyer says Giuliani told associate to offer Ukraine aid in exchange for Biden investigation
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Veryolduser

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think the funniest part about this entire charade is that in order to believe it, you also have to believe Biden was/is going to be the Democratic nominee.

And if that is the case then that will be REALLY funny when he isn't.

At the time of the call, a FOX Poll showed VP Biden beating Trump by a substantial margin in a general election and more so than any other Democratic Contender.

Yes because if anything is fact based clearly it’s the polls!
What was trumps chance at winning at 2 percent in 2016

The NY Times had Hillary at a 95% chance of winning on the morning of the election.

originally posted by: Caractacus
"All while Barr and Durham dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's before unsealing the indictments and commencing the arrests and prosecutions."

That seems very unlikely IMO.

The only activity and actual indictments regarding this mess Involve Rudy Giuliani's contractors in this shadow diplomacy scheme.

Rotflmao!

Patience, grasshopper.