23 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Got it. Clinton pulling millions of dollars in  donations while she was Sec of State and Presidential candidate (that have since dried up) were a "conspiracy", while Trumps corporation selling an extra $80 room is the end of the Republic.

 

Thats not an answer, which means you have none.

 

If the anti Trumpers would tone down the hyperbole, they would have a better chance to reach 63 million Americans and convice them their fav candidate could do a better job. Dont let the Internet Echo Chamber confuse you, all the screeching convinces no one except those who are beleivers anyway.

Nothing illegal by the Clinton Foundation, whereas trump charities have been found to be guilty of maleficence e.g.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html

 

 "Appeal Courts" is an accurate reply. The rest is trump supporter echo chamber nonsense.

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Maybe the question was asked: "Do you want the Bidens as witnessess" 

 

I personally have no problems with witnesses...call them all. All. Every one. Confirm Judges in the morning, trial every day into the afternoon, stretch it out till election day.

yes all 4 of them that have been requested. Shouldnt take long.

Just now, Sujo said:

yes all 4 of them that have been requested. Shouldnt take long.

Oh? Only the Dems get to call witnesses? Got ya.

 

 

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh? Only the Dems get to call witnesses? Got ya.

 

 

Repubs havent requested any. 

The witnesses called are trump supporters.

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Sujo

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Repubs havent requested any. 

OK, so when they do, viz Ciamarella (sp), Bidens, Schiff? Thats OK with you.

 

Call them all. This is a political show trial remember?

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

OK, so when they do, viz Ciamarella (sp), Bidens, Schiff? Thats OK with you.

 

Call them all. This is a political show trial remember?

Would you also like to call mickey mouse?

 

What evidence relevant to the charges would those people have.

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Sujo

Poor Donald. Acted illegally holding up the aid.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine

18 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What evidence relevant to the charges would those people have.

Well thanks for the opening. Im sure that 53 Repub Senators (who decide whats relevant and MATERIAL) will find some relevance and materiality, espcially if Cipollone and Sekulow get up and allege, as per the political nature of the charges, that the losing party in the 2016 election have never gotten over it, and have been claiming Trump is impeachable since the day he was elected, that they have engaged in a course of conduct including leaking, paying for foreign assistance, destroying evidence, mishandling classified information, lying to the FBI, lying to the FISA court, working with the Ukrainians, etc, and all those other "conspiracy" theories that only seem to cover conduct on Trumps side. And then Schiff, the Whistleblower, the history of presidnetial decisions?

 

What a circus! Go for it. Notice that a lot of Trump "supporters" (who are in many cases  Democratic opponents) say...go for it too. This trial is aimed at Independents and non political junkies, let it all hang out.

 

Call them All! What are the Democrats trying to hide? This is urgent, clear and present danger, lets go!

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Nyezhov

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well thanks for the opening. Im sure that 53 Repub Senators (who decide whats relevant and MATERIAL) will find some relevance and materiality, espcially if Cipollone and Sekulow get up and allege, as per the political nature of the charges, that the losing party in the 2016 election have never gotten over it, and have been claiming Trump is impeachable since the day he was elected, that they have engaged in a course of conduct including leaking, paying for foreign assistance, destroying evidence, mishandling classified information, lying to the FBI, lying to the FISA court, working with the Ukrainians, etc, and all those other "conspiracy" theories that only seem to cover conduct on Trumps side. And then Schiff, the Whistleblower, the history of presidnetial decisions?

 

What a circus! Go for it. Notice that a lot of Trump "supporters" (who are in many cases  Democratic opponents) say...go for it too. This trial is aimed at Independents and non political junkies, let it all hang out.

 

Call them All! What are the Democrats trying to hide? This is urgent, clear and present danger, lets go!

Perhaps the GOP should consider calling witnesses that can speak to Trump’s innocence, people with direct first hand knowledge of Trump’s actions.

 

Oddly it is the firsthand witnesses that Trump and the GOP are desperate to withhold from giving testimony.

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The president's supporters complain about a lack of first hand witnesses but fail to mention that the white house aggressively blocked them (and documents) to an unprecedented degree in American history. Wanting it both ways. Hoping enough of the American people don't see that clear hypocritical contradiction. Also labeling Sondland as "their guy" meaning the democrats is incredibly silly. 

It sounds like the Democrats have a disagreement with the legal analysis of the President of the United States and his legal team. Not the first time in US history that this has happened, and that cuts both ways between parties. It matters not to the degree, as the remedy is always the same. The remedy is to go to the Highest court in the land and give argument as to the legality of the subpoenas. You see, the Congress is NOT a branch of Government above the President of the United States, they are a co-equal branch.  The Democrats chose NOT to exercise their right to contest to the court, and instead decided to label this an impeachable offense.  It's not. Just because a politically motivated majority decides to say so is absolutely meaningless. They were unable even to get a full majority of their own party to go along. Now the Senate will argue this, and on its face the charge should simply be thrown out as it makes no sense.  Sondland simply gave worthless testimony. It's all a political hit job and.... God help the Democrats if they let witnesses in. Then not only will they lose the impeachment but they will absolutely and totally destroy Biden as a candidate. Although it could be argued he is already destroyed simply from what comes out of his own mouth. 

 

As for the first charge abuse of power, in order to prove that the President was acting on behalf of the United States, the President will attempt to prove that it was Joe Biden who abused his office. It's gonna get rough witnesses get called, as I said. Democrat farce comes to a bitter end!

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oddly it is the firsthand witnesses that Trump and the GOP are desperate to withhold from giving testimony.

Private conversations with the President concerning the formulation of policy are executive priviledge. Any Whitehouse held by EITHER party will ALWAYS argue it that way. Nothing different here. As for something wrong, the charge is a rather vague "abuse of power" this comes down to the intent of the President, more then what he did or did not do. Was his intent to protect the interest of the USA against corruption as exhibited by the Biden Family? Well if the Democrats wish to insist on calling witnesses.. Bring them in. As for us, crack a beer and watch the biggest political candidate meltdown you have ever seen in your life as Joe Biden and son are wiped across the floor. 

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Poor Donald. Acted illegally holding up the aid.

THat remains to be seen. I think the answer will be provided by the Senate of the United States in about a week.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

What evidence relevant to the charges would those people have.

Schiff and Ciaramella provide evidence that this was a contrived plot to take down a President that was hatched with political purpose. Obviously if the so called whistleblower was coached to make his complaint it has import. Biden's provide evidence as to whether they were acting out of corruption, which speaks directly to the President on the phone call and the Abuse of Power charge against the President as being out of self motivation rather then to protect the interests of the USA. Obviously if Joe Biden and Son are shown before the American people to have engaged in corruption it speaks to the President's intent. 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Though one of the favourite conspiracy subjects by the Right, so far as I know the Clinton Foundation has never been proven guilty of malfeasance. 

Neither has Trump been proven guilty of malfeasance. Had he been he wouldn't be president.

Seems to me you are looking for a crime to fit your predetermined guilty verdict.

 

Merely being a "bad" man is not grounds for conviction.

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps the GOP should consider calling witnesses that can speak to Trump’s innocence, people with direct first hand knowledge of Trump’s actions.

Under American law Trump is presumed INNOCENT till PROVEN guilty. It's not up to Trump to prove his innocence; it's up to the Dems to prove him guilty.

but you knew that.

6 hours ago, candide said:

Source of figure:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/most-voters-want-more-impeachment-witnesses-as-senate-prepares-for-trial/

This poll is a survey of less then 2,000 registered voters. That is a pretty small pool. Would anyone out there agree with me on that fact alone?

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

The longer trump remains in power it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump to become President.

As a student of politics I would be greatly interested in quotations from the American Founding Fathers that support your theory, as well as perhaps expounding on what specifically it is that shows this relationship between length of time, and your conclusion. You can respond privately. I promise not to respond to you with argument. I will just read what you have to say.

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Under American law Trump is presumed INNOCENT till PROVEN guilty. It's not up to Trump to prove his innocence; it's up to the Dems to prove him guilty.

but you knew that.

You seem not to know the law.

 

The presumption of innocence relates to criminal investigations/criminal trials, it has no relevance to an impeachment which is a political, not a criminal, process.

13 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

This poll is a survey of less then 2,000 registered voters. That is a pretty small pool. Would anyone out there agree with me on that fact alone?

I think we can now agree you don’t understand statistical sampling.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

ou seem not to know the law.

 

The presumption of innocence relates to criminal investigations/criminal trials, it has no relevance to an impeachment which is a political, not a criminal, process.

This is simply completely false. Allow me to offer proof. A Senate trial is being held. The Senators just took an oath. It is being run as a trial, If the President were to be presumed guilty already all of this would be unncessessary.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think we can now agree you don’t understand statistical sampling.

My argument is that the sample size is not sufficient. I base that on my understanding of statistical sampling. 

On 1/12/2020 at 4:36 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

On 1/12/2020 at 12:08 PM, bristolboy said:

 

Thanks for the facts reflecting just the opposit of was just said. Some keep repeating oping the lie becomes truth. Nancy's Hosue will soon gain many more seat than the majority they have, facts back up this assertion. Not empty repetition which is all they have.

The current polls in support of either party, as a predictor,  are absolutely meaningless. 

52 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

This is simply completely false. Allow me to offer proof. A Senate trial is being held. The Senators just took an oath. It is being run as a trial, If the President were to be presumed guilty already all of this would be unncessessary.

A senate trial is a political trial. Not a criminal trial. There is no presumption of anything.

 

Guilt or not is decided by each senate member by their own standard.

 

Name me a trial that had no witnesses.

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Sujo

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Guilt or not is decided by each senate member by their own standard.

If they have any

 

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

This poll is a survey of less then 2,000 registered voters. That is a pretty small pool. Would anyone out there agree with me on that fact alone?

Right at the bottom of the poll it says the the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2. This is the work of experienced statisticians. Please share with us your specific disagreement based on statistical grounds.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

 

Right at the bottom of the poll it says the the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2. This is the work of experienced statisticians. Please share with us your specific disagreement based on statistical grounds.

I had a whole lot of links but decided to pull them just to get right down to it: The sample size vs population vs confidence level is simply a statistic agreed? Now this sample must be a random sample. Perfectly random. But how do I know if Bias is in this sample of the respondants? For example, a sample of something scientific for example uses the same numbers right? A measure of a population in nature, a sample taken and a statistic is then used. But how can I apply the same numbers across a human population, that lies about feelings (purposefully or via self deception), does not hear correctly, does not understand, changes mind 10 minutes later, etc?  Because that is exactly what is happening. Hence the need for multiple samples, and even then they come out wrong. So yeah, I don't trust a 1,995 sample size for all the reasons I just mentioned. You can search on why Trump polls were wrong in 2016 and find all kinds of potential reasons more or less all related to reasons I gave. So to answer you on statistical grounds alone, which is the math only, of say a sample to determine mushroom density in North American forests, I can answer on statistical grounds alone, but a sample of human beings, uses more then statistics. It has to account for bias of human beings. How is that mathematically guesstimated? It isn't very well is it? or there would not need to be so many pollsters.

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

This is simply completely false. Allow me to offer proof. A Senate trial is being held. The Senators just took an oath. It is being run as a trial, If the President were to be presumed guilty already all of this would be unncessessary.

It’s an impeachment, it’s not a criminal trial. 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s an impeachment, it’s not a criminal trial. 

The impeachment is over - that's what the House did. It's the equivalent of the UK Crown Prosecution Service or a US Grand Jury deciding there's enough evidence to send the matter to trial. Trump's already impeached. Now he's standing trial in the Senate

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by ThaiBunny

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

A senate trial is a political trial. Not a criminal trial. There is no presumption of anything.

 

Guilt or not is decided by each senate member by their own standard.

An attempted case is being made here that Donald J Trump is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY of Abuse of Power and Obstructon of Congress. IF no case is made, he is found to be NOT GUILTY, which by the Senate. Now a person can play with words all day long but there wil be an outcome of this Senate trial. The entire United States law is built around the concept of innocent until proven guilty, even if this is not a courtroom. You are correct that this is a political trial, but never the less, evidence is being examined as presented to the Senate by the House. Evidence of what? Abuse of Power by the President and Obstruction of Congress. Why the word play? One could say in two weeks "cleared of all charges" I suppose, as that is what is going to happen.

33 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

An attempted case is being made here that Donald J Trump is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY of Abuse of Power and Obstructon of Congress. IF no case is made, he is found to be NOT GUILTY, which by the Senate. Now a person can play with words all day long but there wil be an outcome of this Senate trial. The entire United States law is built around the concept of innocent until proven guilty, even if this is not a courtroom. You are correct that this is a political trial, but never the less, evidence is being examined as presented to the Senate by the House. Evidence of what? Abuse of Power by the President and Obstruction of Congress. Why the word play? One could say in two weeks "cleared of all charges" I suppose, as that is what is going to happen.

What makes you think they will look at evidence. They dont have to. They dont have to call witnesses. 

 

The senate jury can also overrule the judge on any decision.

 

Finding of guilt or not is up to each person regarding a standard they alone determine.

 

Its not even close to what we consider a normal trial.otherwise none of the senators would be allowed to sit on the trial.