Democrats release new batch of testimony from Trump impeachment inquiry

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You need to fit the word "potential" somewhere in your statement.

Dont worry yourself. A lot of taylors testimony was not hearsay. It was directly from sondland. 

 

I couldnt find pompeo, mulvany, perry on the repub list of witnesses. Dont they want to know what happened?

[roobaa01]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You know, I've always suspected you were a visitor from the future. And now we have confirmation. The UK hasn't yet released the Russian meddling report to those of us living in the here and now. I don't suppose you could post a link to the future where it exists?

5555 tense twist "is going to be released".

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

No I don't. You maintain on principle that only incriminating evidence would be if there are eye or ear witnesses maintaining that Trump explicitly stipulated a quid pro quo. I'm just pointing out that your understanding of what constitutes incriminating evidence is not reality based,

Nor is it legally sound.

 

many people convicted on circumstancial evidence. As we used to say during trials, circumstantial evidencence is fine if you have enough of it.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Laza 45 said:

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/the-surprise-phone-call-that-just-blew-up-donald-trumps-presidency/22918/?fbclid=IwAR3J2gH9noPIIu_Ugw6906FHcG-3FNmyfc8kynREvUF146crgiJ-QdSjFlQ

 

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It was an article based on the public testimony of William Taylor. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-testimony-ties-trump-more-directly-to-ukraine-pressure-campaign/2019/11/13/189872b2-0633-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

 

I think you've got things mixed up, bristolboy.  It was Laza 45's link that I commented on.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I think you've got things mixed up, bristolboy.  It was Laza 45's link that I commented on.

The palmer report article was based on the public testimony of William Taylor. Was it not?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice rant but it's all relevant.  If you don't realize it yet you will at some point in the future when the relevancy is shown.

 

As to withholding foreign aid:

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president

 

Foreign aid. Presidents have also balked at congressional attempts to withhold economic or security assistance from governments or entities with poor human rights records. For instance, during the Obama administration, senior U.S. military commanders said that, while well-intentioned, restrictions on U.S. aid complicated other foreign policy objectives, like counterterrorism or counternarcotics.

 

Foreign aid is, I believe, a contested power between branches of government.  I could not find who holds that power definitively but I do believe that the President has the final say on whether or not to disburse foreign aid, regardless of whether Congress appropriates funds for it or whether the Pentagon or other policy makers approve.

 

If someone can point to a source which definitively states who has that express power then we could settle this.  Otherwise, if it within the President's legal purview to have the final say then you last point is moot.

"Trump has claimed he released the aid on September 11. But five sources told Bloomberg that $141 million of the money was actually authorized to be released several days earlier after lawyers determined that the White House Office of Management and Budget and, therefore, the president, had no legal standing to block the funds."   https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/10/ukraine-aid-was-released-after-federal-lawyers-said-trump-freeze-was-illegal-report/23857555/

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Trump has claimed he released the aid on September 11. But five sources told Bloomberg that $141 million of the money was actually authorized to be released several days earlier after lawyers determined that the White House Office of Management and Budget and, therefore, the president, had no legal standing to block the funds."   https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/10/ukraine-aid-was-released-after-federal-lawyers-said-trump-freeze-was-illegal-report/23857555/

Trump didn’t authorized the release of fund period.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/report-state-dept-quietly-released-ukraine-aid-at-boltons-orders

[TopDeadSenter]

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Dont worry yourself. A lot of taylors testimony was not hearsay. It was directly from sondland.

That IS hearsay! Had Taylor been listening in on the telephone call personally then he would be a real witness, as is he is repeating something he heard 2nd hand making his testimony 3rd hand information. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. Regardless the whole thing is BS, Trump released the transcripts showing no crime and the whole thing came crashing down into a steaming pile of muck.

 

 I think in the fall-out from the latest in the dems silly games (pee pee dossiers, Russian collusion hoax, sex with some porn star, now the Biden-gate Ukraine witch hunt etc etc etc) the dems will be ruined. I guess they will be forced to disband and reform with more credible members into an opposition party with a new name. This whole hoax nonsense for 4 years is the most embarrassing political farce I have ever witnessed.

 

 Regardless of how this hoax plays out, in the future in the USA we will have a situation where a POTUS commits a crime and then gets impeached. Not gets impeached and then a frantic hunt for a reason for the impeachment.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

That IS hearsay! Had Taylor been listening in on the telephone call personally then he would be a real witness, as is he is repeating something he heard 2nd hand making his testimony 3rd hand information. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. Regardless the whole thing is BS, Trump released the transcripts showing no crime and the whole thing came crashing down into a steaming pile of muck.

 

 I think in the fall-out from the latest in the dems silly games (pee pee dossiers, Russian collusion hoax, sex with some porn star, now the Biden-gate Ukraine witch hunt etc etc etc) the dems will be ruined. I guess they will be forced to disband and reform with more credible members into an opposition party with a new name. This whole hoax nonsense for 4 years is the most embarrassing political farce I have ever witnessed.

 

 Regardless of how this hoax plays out, in the future in the USA we will have a situation where a POTUS commits a crime and then gets impeached. Not gets impeached and then a frantic hunt for a reason for the impeachment.

This is incoherent. On the one hand the WH forbids first hand witnesses to testify, and one the other one the Republicans complain there are few 1st hand witnesses.

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Nor is it legally sound.

 

many people convicted on circumstancial evidence. As we used to say during trials, circumstantial evidencence is fine if you have enough of it.

Hearsay is admissible as circumstantial evidence?

 

Where?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

That IS hearsay! Had Taylor been listening in on the telephone call personally then he would be a real witness, as is he is repeating something he heard 2nd hand making his testimony 3rd hand information. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. Regardless the whole thing is BS, Trump released the transcripts showing no crime and the whole thing came crashing down into a steaming pile of muck.

 

 I think in the fall-out from the latest in the dems silly games (pee pee dossiers, Russian collusion hoax, sex with some porn star, now the Biden-gate Ukraine witch hunt etc etc etc) the dems will be ruined. I guess they will be forced to disband and reform with more credible members into an opposition party with a new name. This whole hoax nonsense for 4 years is the most embarrassing political farce I have ever witnessed.

 

 Regardless of how this hoax plays out, in the future in the USA we will have a situation where a POTUS commits a crime and then gets impeached. Not gets impeached and then a frantic hunt for a reason for the impeachment.

No, stating what a person told them is not hearsay.

 

Sondland telling taylor what needs to be done is direct evidence. Its now up to sondland to either say he acted alone on that or put it on trump.

 

 

 

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Hearsay is admissible as circumstantial evidence?

 

Where?

There are exceptions to heasay evidence. Everywhere.

[RideJocky]

Jim Jordon’s questioning of Ambassador Taylor is hilarious. 
 

 

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

That IS hearsay! Had Taylor been listening in on the telephone call personally then he would be a real witness, as is he is repeating something he heard 2nd hand making his testimony 3rd hand information. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. Regardless the whole thing is BS, Trump released the transcripts showing no crime and the whole thing came crashing down into a steaming pile of muck.

 

 I think in the fall-out from the latest in the dems silly games (pee pee dossiers, Russian collusion hoax, sex with some porn star, now the Biden-gate Ukraine witch hunt etc etc etc) the dems will be ruined. I guess they will be forced to disband and reform with more credible members into an opposition party with a new name. This whole hoax nonsense for 4 years is the most embarrassing political farce I have ever witnessed.

 

 Regardless of how this hoax plays out, in the future in the USA we will have a situation where a POTUS commits a crime and then gets impeached. Not gets impeached and then a frantic hunt for a reason for the impeachment.

"...Trump released the transcripts showing no crime and the whole thing came crashing down into a steaming pile of muck."

a) when did he release the transcript?

Again, for the hard of learning: he released an edited version!

The real transcript is still on a secure server!

b) the released "transcript" contains a quid pro quo! What part of "I want you to do us a favor, THOUGH..." is unclear?

c) Military aid, granted by the Senate (eg the AMERICAN PEOPLE) was withheld and would have been released, if Zylinski would have done ol' Donny "a favor, though"!

d) Trump is announcing for weeks, that he will release the full, unedited version of the transcript!

Yet he doesn't!

e) He is now announcing the release of another call- transcript, of a call, that was "more important", according to...himself!

- who is he, to say, what is more important?

- what if everybody wants the transcript of the "unimportant" call?

 

You are soooooo clutching at straws, it is almost funny!

[Sujo]

Its laughable how some say there is no direct evidence so its a nothing burger. Afterb1/day and 9 witnesses to go. Plus the guy that heard trump tell sondland.

 

but these same guys are convinced of bidens guilt based on, nothing.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Jim Jordon’s questioning of Ambassador Taylor is hilarious. 
 

 

Agree. He certainly wasted his 5 mins.

[RideJocky]

42 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There are exceptions to heasay evidence. Everywhere.

For example? 
 

In any event, implying hearsay is admissible as “circumstantial evidence” is wrong, correct? 
 

 

[RideJocky]

41 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Agree. He certainly wasted his 5 mins.

Yes, given his agenda

[RideJocky]

44 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its laughable how some say there is no direct evidence so its a nothing burger. Afterb1/day and 9 witnesses to go. Plus the guy that heard trump tell sondland.

 

but these same guys are convinced of bidens guilt based on, nothing.

Direct evidence of what? Asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption of a political rival? 
 

I not convinced Biden is guilty of anything. 

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Direct evidence of what? Asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption of a political rival? 
 

I not convinced Biden is guilty of anything. 

Sondland transcript is direct evidence.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

For example? 
 

In any event, implying hearsay is admissible as “circumstantial evidence” is wrong, correct? 
 

 

I think that i miss stated. 

 

Not circumstantial. Hearsay evidence is indeed allowed as there are exceptions to it. 

 

Circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there is lots of it.

 

in any event. Evidence so far looks bad for trump considering no one from repubs has contested it.

[ballpoint]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Its laughable how some say there is no direct evidence so its a nothing burger. Afterb1/day and 9 witnesses to go. Plus the guy that heard trump tell sondland.

 

but these same guys are convinced of bidens guilt based on, nothing.

Trump's supporters are getting increasingly agitated and frantic for such a big nothing burger.

[ballpoint]

Highlight of the day:

 

Ohio Republican Congressman, Jim Jordan, trying to drag the identity of the whistleblower into it: "how unjust it is that the Democrats aren't allowing the committee to question the person who started it all.  We'll never get a chance to question that individual."

 

Virginia Democrat Congressman, Peter Welch: "I'd be glad to have the person who 'started it all' come in and testify," gesturing towards the witness table. "President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there."

 

https://www.gq.com/story/jim-jordan-impeachment-inquiry-hearing

 

Game, set and match, Welch.

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Sondland transcript is direct evidence.

Evidence of what?

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

I think that i miss stated. 

 

Not circumstantial. Hearsay evidence is indeed allowed as there are exceptions to it. 

 

Circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there is lots of it.

 

in any event. Evidence so far looks bad for trump considering no one from repubs has contested it.

 

How many witnesses of have the Republicans called?

 

So do you have some examples of hearsay being admitted as evidence?

 

 

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Evidence of what?

Read his evidence then comment

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

How many witnesses of have the Republicans called?

 

So do you have some examples of hearsay being admitted as evidence?

 

 

Try reading rules of evidence. There are exceptions when hearsay is allowed. Then get back to me.

 

The evidence from yesterday was not hearsay, they testified what was told to them. That is direct. What sondland told them to do is direct evidence as that was what he told them.

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

How many witnesses of have the Republicans called?

 

So do you have some examples of hearsay being admitted as evidence?

 

 

I can tell you who they havent called. Pompeo, giuliano, shofkin, mulvany, perry. Just shows they are not intetested in the truth. Perhaps you could google yourself instead of asking.

 

For hearsay hete is a link from a 2 second search. Perhaps again you could do it yourself.

 

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

[JHolmesJr]

Im stunned at how weak the democrats case is...just a whole bunch of Chinese whispers.

I heard this....from so and so...who heard it in the corridor. My office has more trustworthy gossip.

[alex8912]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Im stunned at how weak the democrats case is...just a whole bunch of Chinese whispers.

I heard this....from so and so...who heard it in the corridor. My office has more trustworthy gossip.

Yes. It’s now become a double nothing burger.