Roger Stone Trial Updates:
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Wrong. Even the language of the inquiry vote was wiggly enough for red state Dems to try to deny that they are impeaching, to their constituents. It most certainly is NOT an impeachment.
No, you didn’t. It’s not hearsay for Gates to testify what he witnessed. Feel free to keep parroting the line though.
It's not lunacy. Mueller found crimes on multiple Trump associates.
I'm glad someone finally made an attempt to cite a statute. Now let's see some actual evidence rather than parsing of words. If there's evidence, it should be easy to show, and easy to impeach and convict.
my mistake, i thought this was a serious discussion about evidence. carry on.
You are proving my point for me. OLC has said a sitting president cannot be indicted in any form while he is in office. Impeachment is a political function and not a trial of fact so even if there is evidence then Trump could survive if Republicans want him to.
You really don't get it do you? The Republicans and voters won't forget this little charade for 1000 years.
Yes it would "raise the image of the US a thousandfold"?
So now you're speaking out against your own claim?
So does removing him burnish or tarnish the image of the US? Pick a side.
You are incorrect. Impeachment is a trial of fact, even if it is a political function. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
As far as the opinion that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted, there's no basis for that in the Constitution. A POTUS can be charged criminally, and also be impeached. Impeachment is the mechanism to remove him from office.
Pretty easy to find a recording of him ADMITTING to sexually assaulting women. That doesn’t bother ya’ll though.I find it comical that all you guys are ever able to produce vs. Trump is partisan hearsay. No recordings, no documents, no videos. Hearsay. Comical.
The Democrat party has devolved into a poorly written comic book series. Have fun with it.
There is no constitutional basis but Mueller was bound to the OLC decision as an employee of the Justice Department.
As for impeachment being a trial of fact, that is false. Impeachment is built on facts but even if one side proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt (which isn’t the standard), the other side is not obligated to remove him from office. If it were indeed a true trial of fact, they would be obligated to remove him if the facts are confirmed.
Distasteful was electing and then defending him. Removing him will restore some honor to the country.
Taking joy in people being held accountable for criminal actions is far from "pathetic".
It's awesome.
Is it "pathetic" when a known child molester gets The Chair, or is imprisoned for life, to you?
No, impeachment is not a trial.
Impeachment is a charge (article), and the gathering of evidence to support it.
The trial is held in the Senate.
Indeed; Impeachment is the legal equivalent of a grand jury identifying if there is enough EVIDENCE for a trial.
Do you read a lot of "for dummies" books? I notice you do a lot of FUN FACTS and PRO TIPS.
I agree with you btw. Hearsay is admissible under many legal circumstances. But it remains hearsay.
So, then you're admitting your point is irrelevant here. Because following a discussion at the bench, the judge ALLOWED that evidence to be presented.
Actually no, it's not. But you're welcome to keep right on spinning until you're dizzy.
You guys should start planning for 2024. 2020 is gone.
Extortion - obtaining personal benefit through coercion - is a crime in all fifty states.
Trump withheld aid to The Ukraine, contrary to US foreign policy, and asked Zalesky to make a public announcement that an investigation was being made into Hunter Biden.
It doesn’t get much more clear cut than that.
You guys all need to get on the same page. I only said it was hearsay. All your buds said it's not hearsay, except for @JohnBasedow who assured me it's not "heresay" and @dgordo assured me it was a line of questioning, but then decided it was the answers.
You are in fact the only person weighing in on this that agrees with me. I applaud that.
Why do I "need to get on the same page"?
Whether it is hearsay or not, is irrelevant.
The judge and lawyers have deemed it to be admissible in court, hearsay or not.
The image of the US can only be redeemed if we remove him from office. Any sign this might happen is cause for joy.
Further, within the relatively private confines of HROT, Trump supporters have taken glee in every obnoxious thing he does despite the embarrassment that he has brought to out country, simply because they get joy when liberals are upset. To them I am very gleeful that their sick happiness might come to a disgraceful end.
Your tsk-tsks are misplaced and, I believe, insincere.
Just to be clear, you're saying that right or wrong, the judge admitted hearsay?
No; I'm saying whether it meets the legal definitions of hearsay or not, it is admissible.
See, even recordings don’t matter. Trump could be caught on recording confessing to murdering someone and you guys would find a way to shoot it down. It’s absolutely mind blowing how dumb of a cult following that moran has.
But are you going to join your buds and deny that the testimony from one person, as to the words of another, is not hearsay?
With this corrupt, PoS scam artist POTUS? Hell yes I do. He belongs in jail...not making decisions for you and me.
What does that have to do with him admitting to grabbing women by the vaginas?
It’s not hearsay, it’s an exception to the hearsay rule. This is first year law school stuff that’s probably why all the lawyers here understand the rule and you don’t.
