Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2023 05:36
VIEWED: 86324
PAGE 8 of 76

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, November 20, 2017 4:59 AM

THUGR

Quote:
AND STILL NO EVIDENCE, eh comrade troll? - SIGNY
You really should try and tell the truth once SIG, you'll feel better. If you won't believe me maybe you'll believe one of these guys.- THUGR

Fifty quotes "about the truth" and still no evidence? Son, in order to KNOW the truth you first have to open your eyes.

SECOND

Quote:
Robert Mueller needs to persuade grand juries ... [and] tell a story that a judge or a jury can follow

In other words, Mueller needs to spin a yarn? Maybe you need to tell that to THUGR, since HE seems to believe that "the truth" should figure into this somehow.

One of the things I'm really good at (in my job) is letting the data speak to me. You just gotta throw the data on the table and absorb it, without trying to impose a picture on the data.

I think the Trump campaign committee had far fewer inimical foreign contacts than the Clinton campaign committee.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

KPO

Monday, November 20, 2017 5:58 AM

Quote:

I do check my own quote when somebody quotes me and so far I've never seen anybody intentionally change what I post and try to pass it off as something I actually said.

Kiki did this to me a few weeks ago. Only time I've seen it done.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521

SECOND

Monday, November 20, 2017 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

One of the things I'm really good at (in my job) is letting the data speak to me. You just gotta throw the data on the table and absorb it, without trying to impose a picture on the data.

I think the Trump campaign committee had far fewer inimical foreign contacts than the Clinton campaign committee.

Lawyers are not scientists. A prosecutor will paint an ugly picture, a caricature, of the defendant for the judge and jury. The prosecutor who has Clinton on trial would recast your sentence as "Trump campaign had fewer inimical foreign contacts than Clinton" then give a blizzard of examples of the Clinton campaign in contact with foreigners. Snow jobs are how prosecutors turn suspicion into convictions from juries.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND
Quote:
Robert Mueller needs to persuade grand juries ... [and] tell a story that a judge or a jury can follow
In other words, Mueller needs to spin a yarn? Maybe you need to tell that to THUGR, since HE seems to believe that "the truth" should figure into this somehow.

A prosecutor cannot win if the jury is family of the defendant. Well, Robert Mueller cannot win because half the Senate are Trump’s “family”, the Republicans.

Is Mueller wasting his time collecting evidence since a conviction is mathematically impossible when the Senate has 52 Republicans? I don’t think so because Mueller’s evidence, and Mueller’s story explaining the Trump/Putin connection, can influence Congressional Republicans.

After he was impeached, President Andrew Johnson didn’t get removed from office, but he did become a political nonentity without influence on public policy. The same could happen to Trump, depending upon how dramatic the story Mueller writes using the evidence. I predict it will be a very dramatic story because, generally, prosecutors aren’t on the defendants’ side. But Trump might fool me by getting a new prosecutor who just happens to be a loyal happy member of his Republican extended family. That would be dramatic twist, would it not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Andrew_Johnson#Aftermath

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Monday, November 20, 2017 5:09 PM

Quote:
Lawyers are not scientists ... Snow jobs are how prosecutors turn suspicion into convictions from juries.

Lawyers aren't scientists, but YOU should be, otherwise you can't claim to know what's going on.

Lawyers have agendas: Prosecutors seek to prosecute, and defenders seek to defend. So far, you've been far into the prosecutor's camp: biased and prejudiced, which is what I've been saying all along.

I "get" that you hate Trump, but maybe you shouldn't be driven by bias and emotion. By allowing yourself to be so driven that you fail to look at ALL of the data is how people get manipulated by TPTB. And YOU don't want to be manipulated, do you?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

SECOND

Monday, November 20, 2017 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Lawyers are not scientists ... Snow jobs are how prosecutors turn suspicion into convictions from juries.
Lawyers aren't scientists, but YOU should be, otherwise you can't claim to know what's going on.

Lawyers have agendas: Prosecutors seek to prosecute, and defenders seek to defend. So far, you've been far into the prosecutor's camp: biased and prejudiced, which is what I've been saying all along.

I "get" that you hate Trump, but maybe you shouldn't be driven by bias and emotion. By allowing yourself to be so driven that you fail to look at ALL of the data is how people get manipulated by TPTB. And YOU don't want to be manipulated, do you?

Do three lawyers have a meeting before a trial and roll the dice to decide who is judge, who is prosecutor, and who is defense attorney? No! They arrive in the courtroom already having taken a side. They have prejudged the case. Are jurors selected at random? No! The defense and prosecution exclude jurors to gain advantage. Trials are in no way dispassionate seeking of the Truth. There is nothing scientific happening in a courtroom. And impeachment is even more manipulative and unscientific. It is a clash of wills.

Check into the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson if you want to see how messy a Trump impeachment will be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Monday, November 20, 2017 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND
Quote:
Robert Mueller needs to persuade grand juries ... [and] tell a story that a judge or a jury can follow
In other words, Mueller needs to spin a yarn? Maybe you need to tell that to THUGR, since HE seems to believe that "the truth" should figure into this somehow.

One of the things I'm really good at (in my job) is letting the data speak to me. You just gotta throw the data on the table and absorb it, without trying to impose a picture on the data.

And here we have it. SIG tells us if Mueller is able to make a case against Trump ( which is seconds point ), he will be lying, spinning a yarn. Nothing else needs to be said. This shows what I've said about SIG from day one to be true. She has an agenda and facts don't enter into it.

SIGNYM

Monday, November 20, 2017 8:31 PM

Quote:
Do three lawyers have a meeting before a trial and roll the dice to decide who is judge, who is prosecutor, and who is defense attorney? No! They arrive in the courtroom already having taken a side. They have prejudged the case. Are jurors selected at random? No! The defense and prosecution exclude jurors to gain advantage. Trials are in no way dispassionate seeking of the Truth. There is nothing scientific happening in a courtroom. And impeachment is even more manipulative and unscientific. It is a clash of wills. - SECOND

SECOND, basically you're saying that you don't give a crap about the truth because you're describing - and excusing- a system in which truth doesn't figure.

I KNEW THAT.

Yanno, here I am ... arguing for the betterment of decision-making, the improvement of public discourse, and the advancement of our democracy ... and there YOU are saying It's an impassioned mob! It's always been an impassioned mob! It SHOULD be an impassioned mob!

I argue that YOU are the jury, not the prosecutor or the defense, and it is YOUR job to come up with a careful consideration of the truth, as best as you can. So far, you've been the prosecutor, who (BTW) has STILL not brought actual evidence to the table.

******

Quote:
And here we have it. SIG tells us if Mueller is able to make a case against Trump ( which is seconds point ), he will be lying, spinning a yarn.- THUGR

THUGR .... I'm simply saying what SECOND said, only in different words. "Spinning a yarn" isn't the same as "lying". It's "telling a story" ... which is what SECOND said.

I noticed that SECOND didn't disagree with my re-statement, instead he doubled down on it. If you disagree with SECOND's characterization- that Mueller has to "tell a story" that makes sense to a jury - take it up with him, not me. A lot of bullshit from you, a lot of false personal attacks on me and mis-characterizations (lies) about what I've posted.

But still, no evidence.

WHEN THE EVIDENCE BECOMES FULLY PUBLIC, THEN WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THGRRI

Monday, November 20, 2017 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Do three lawyers have a meeting before a trial and roll the dice to decide who is judge, who is prosecutor, and who is defense attorney? No! They arrive in the courtroom already having taken a side. They have prejudged the case. Are jurors selected at random? No! The defense and prosecution exclude jurors to gain advantage. Trials are in no way dispassionate seeking of the Truth. There is nothing scientific happening in a courtroom. And impeachment is even more manipulative and unscientific. It is a clash of wills. - SECOND
SECOND, basically you're saying that you don't give a crap about the truth because you're describing - and excusing- a system in which truth doesn't figure.

I KNEW THAT.

This is a troubling conversation you're having. If the facts don't warrant charges or a trial then there won't be any. There are those who would site times when this was not the case. Where personalities here would obfuscate, or darken the reputation of the rule of law in this country, as they attempt to make the case the rule of law in this country is completely broken. Sounds like what is being said here. Typical of SIG, it's what she does. SECOND, I hope this is not what you are trying to convey.

1KIKI

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:30 AM

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

SECOND

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I noticed that SECOND didn't disagree with my re-statement, instead he doubled down on it. If you disagree with SECOND's characterization- that Mueller has to "tell a story" that makes sense to a jury - take it up with him, not me. A lot of bullshit from you, a lot of false personal attacks on me and mis-characterizations (lies) about what I've posted.

But still, no evidence.

WHEN THE EVIDENCE BECOMES FULLY PUBLIC, THEN WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN.

A reminder of an extremely peculiar fact about America: Only the United States makes routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket (like defamation suits in England and Wales), but true civil jury trials are almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world.

Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic (or political) tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries being unduly biased and partial.

The fact that juries do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, since opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it is being done so. In contrast where there is a decision by a judge or judges, they are required to provide often detailed reasons of both fact and law as to why their decision was made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

Impeachment is a civil matter, not criminal, right? I don't expect prison, but ostracism, for Trump.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE