Disloyal Pence Aide Testifes Against Trump

[El OchoCinco]

Central to that determination would be a searching examination of the Bidens' conduct, so that we would know if Trump acted on reasonable suspicion or merely political malice. The dems are attempting to skip this crucial step, which renders their entire proceeding a farce.

I may have crossed over AAA and your comments because you were both answering me on the same issue.

I don't care if Senate wants to call in Biden or Hunter, it would be as equal as a fake shit show as we have now that achieves nothing.

My only comment was that questioning them solely to justify what Trump did as a valid defense is not permissible. You cannot use someone else's improper action to justify your own breaking of the law.

Not only that it makes it seem GOP admits he did QPQ but wants to explain why haha.

 

[El OchoCinco]

The Senate will examine Biden, Hunter, and the Whistleblower and many of the current witnesses further to establish whether Trump acting solely for personal gain or/and to further American interests in rooting out corrupt practices involving American funds and American personnel and American interests.

Ahh here it is. You are saying Biden should be investigated to clarify Trump's motives.

Again, you cannot mitigate away your motives for committing a crime. If Trump did pressure Ukraine via QPQ to investigate Biden it does not matter why Trump was acting, it is still a crime.

Both you and AAA are making the case that if we investigate Biden and find he did some squirrly shit then what Trump did is magically not illegal. It does not work that way as I showed with my examples.

that is all I am saying. You are adding more to the argument about whether Senate should haul in Biden etc. I don't care or comment on that but to do so thinking it exonerates Trump is false.

Also as I said you seem to be making the argument that, YES Trump did make a QPQ offer to Ukraine and withheld aid to investigate Biden but that is ok because Biden may have done some bad stuff. Huh? We call that in law a stipulation against interest and it would be something only a stupid Rudy would suggest.

 

[Black_Cat]

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Ahh here it is. You are saying Biden should be investigated to clarify Trump's motives.

Again, you cannot mitigate away your motives for committing a crime.

Ahhhh, excuse, but you most certainly can.

Where a defendant is accused of doing x,y,z for the sole purpose of personal it is a perfectly valid defense to refute that by showing other reasons for doing the alleged actions.

No one is better at this than the dems and obama and the swamp. They took/take actions that clearly involved illegal surveillance of certain individuals for the purpose of political gain, but attempt to defend themselves by showing that the political gain was just coincidental or a side benefit to other legitimate reasons for taking those actions.

Please, I allow you plenty of room to try to attempt to be superior legally, but no outright bullshit please.

Also you do not know what the rules of procedure and evidence will be. The Senate needs to define and/or adopt them when the time comes. Sometimes the adopt the federal criminal rules and sometimes they do that modify them.
So what a court would or would not allow for admissability is not necessarily what controls an impeachment proceeding.

As a side note. if they do adopt the federal criminal rules, that is also going to have unintended side effect of eliminating hearsay testimony from the current crop of witnesses.

 

[El OchoCinco]

You should read up on Hearsay then. Because there are numerous exceptions to hearsay that allow the testimony in for the jury to decide for themselves. Especially when direct evidence does not exist.

Also it does not matter if someone does something for personal gain or for an imagined valid defense. What law are you reading up on?

Did you bribe the government official to give your company the contract?

Yes but it was not for personal gain, I did it so I can hire people to work the contract so it is for their benefit!

Ok no crime committed! WTF?

Look, you are just wrong on this one. Intention is not a defense for a crime it is simply a mitigating factor for punishment. That is why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter for example.

Also Intent is defined as the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence. Intent is not mitigated away after the fact by claiming a noble purpose, you still had intent. What is behind the intent is relevant for mitigation of criminal punishment. Ignorance of the law is no defense ever.


Did you shoot that man in the head?

Yes but he robbed a liquor store and would not turn himself in.

Ok then you are free to go.

I am not only superior legally but also in common sense.

It is illegal to bribe or coerce foreign officials to investigate your political rival. PERIOD.
If you claim, OH but it is not for my personal benefit, he may have done something bad, it is not a defense.

Police Commissioner, if you do not investigate my opponent in the Mayor race for corruption I will have you fired!
Oh not a crime because maybe the guy was corrupt.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You should read up on Hearsay then. Because there are numerous exceptions to hearsay that allow the testimony in for the jury to decide for themselves. Especially when direct evidence does not exist.

Also it does not matter if someone does something for personal gain or for an imagined valid defense. What law are you reading up on?

Ahhh, no.

You are proposing bullshit defense arguments that you presume that I an others would be making and then arguing against those and then telling yourself you are smart.

That is not the defense that derives from examining Biden and Hunter - ie that they might have done something wrong so Trump therefore it is okay for trump to do something wrong too. That is just something you are pulling out of your arse and then arguing against.

There is history between the U.S and Ukraine and examining corruption or the need to do it. Biden was involved in it under Obama, and then Trump got involved too. A lengthy history there. And the DOJ has a current investigation open regarding Ukraine contacts in the 2016 election Trump has several reasons - beyond personal gain- to be pushing the need to investigate the Bidens - both of them- and the issue of corruption itself. Particularly if the dems are defending Biden by saying that it is perfectly within the scope of an administration to lean on Ukraine officials . You have already gone ahead and cooked up what the arguments are supposed to be in your mind and then defeated them. That's just you and your mind having a little game. Not what I said and not how a full examination of the bidens will bear fruit, along with a full examination of the whistlespy.

You comments about the hearsay exception rules an jurors and all of that are just more of the same crock that dems are trying to run with- ie. yes, it is hearsay but there are times when hearsay is even better. Okay, you just stay with that argument.

In the meantime reflect on the the little fact that in a Senate impeachment trial, the Senators sit both as jurors and as judge of all motions. The figurehead supreme court justice might make a ruling on mundane matters to keep things coordinated but the senate gets to vote on all motions and over-rule the chief justice. In other words, they will hear whatever hearsay they want to hear and exclude whatever they do not, depending on whichever party has the majority vote. You go ahead and figure out which one that is.

done. so proceed with arguing against some argument that I did not make, it seems to be your modus.

 

[El OchoCinco]

You comments about the hearsay exception rules an jurors and all of that are just more of the same crock that dems are trying to run with- ie. yes, it is hearsay but there are times when hearsay is even better. Okay, you just stay with that argument.

.

No, no..no one said hearsay is BETTER. Hearsay is ALLOWED when there is no direct testimony or actual verified document. No one said it is better so now you are making up an argument.

No recording of the call was released which is direct testimony. A transcript was produced which is not stipulated to be the actual transcript but one produced after the fact based on memory and notes. This is universally deemed to be indirect evidence.

Supporting statements and testimony is admissible to clarify and support indirect evidence.

That my friend is not direct testimony and therefore what would otherwise be considered hearsay in light of direct evidence is allowed to provide testimony and evidence to fill in and support.

Hearsay is not lying or is allowed to contradict direct testimony. GOP called it hearsay to confuse you. It would be admissible in every single court of law in this country.

Look you dont know the law so don't make up shit.


Maybe watch a few episodes of Law and Order...you might learn something.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

You cannot use someone else's improper action to justify your own breaking of the law.

You are assuming away the main issue, ie exactly what law did the President break? If, for example, he had demanded they supply him with underage girls to get the money (not mentioning any names here), then I agree there is a big problem. But this is completely different from the president using aid as leverage to get action from another country on a matter of legitimate national interest.

 

[Tony Stark]

a matter of legitimate national interest.

Get the fuck outta here with that bull shit.You know damn well Trump doesnt give a shit about corruption in The Ukraine and only wanted help beating Biden.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

No, no..no one said hearsay is BETTER. Hearsay is ALLOWED when there is no direct testimony or actual verified document. No one said it is better so now you are making up an argument.

No recording of the call was released which is direct testimony. A transcript was produced which is not stipulated to be the actual transcript but one produced after the fact based on memory and notes. This is universally deemed to be indirect evidence.

Supporting statements and testimony is admissible to clarify and support indirect evidence.

That my friend is not direct testimony and therefore what would otherwise be considered hearsay in light of direct evidence is allowed to provide testimony and evidence to fill in and support.

Hearsay is not lying or is allowed to contradict direct testimony. GOP called it hearsay to confuse you. It would be admissible in every single court of law in this country.

Look you dont know the law so don't make up shit.


Maybe watch a few episodes of Law and Order...you might learn something.

did not read. your allotted game time for the day has expired.