Real World Event Discussions

How it is possible to acquit someone at a trial with NO witnesses when witnesses were present at the time of the CRIME?? DIRTY MONEY and DIRTY SELF-SERVING LAWYERS

POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Sunday, June 21, 2026 15:21
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 9 of 12

SECOND

Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
blah blah blah ... something ... mumble ... more blah blah blah ... and more blah blah blah
So Trump should have been impeached because of his views on the environment and Israel/ Iran?

Sounds like a case for making sure the democratic candidate is better instead!

It is not Trump's "views" that deserve impeachment. It is that Trump has issued executive orders ridding the country of the plague of regulations that protect children from mercury poisoning and preserve the country’s water supplies and lands. He has been casually proceeding to dismantle the last vestiges of the arms control regime that has provided some limited degree of security from terminal nuclear war.

Any Democrat, even one who is not Bernie Sanders, will kick all of Trump's appointees out.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:
SIGNY: SECOND, if you have to make points by picking on someone for their teeth or their health then your "arguments" have sunk to the level of "You've got boogers in your nose!".
Don't you have anything more on-point to post?
Just remember, son ... one day, you will be old and sick* (*Not counting the limp and other possible injuries.) Do you want to get treated the way you've treated others? Because THAT would be karma.

SECOND: Trump’s lawyers dismissed nearly all of that testimony as hearsay.

Trump's lawyers, and KIKI, and I, are CORRECT. It is a point that KIKI and I have been making over and over and over again. I listened to or read the testimony of the "bombshell" witnesses. KIKI was probably more thorough than I was. NOWHERE did I hear/read the magic words Trump told me or I heard Trump say. It was all about somebody (not Trump) telling them, and quite often that tidbit was because somebody else (NOT TRUMP) told the second person. That is the very definition of hearsay, but to help you out, here is the internet definition

Quote:
hearsay
n.Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
n. Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
n. Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip.

I srongly suggest that YOU do some digging into the ACTUAL TESTIMONY, as KIKI and I have ... not the media spin, not Schiff's "interpretations" but the ACTUAL TESTIMONY ... throw it against the definition of hearsay, and decide for yourself.

Quote:
Sondland’s “mistaken belief does not become proof because he repeated it many times,” Trump lawyer Mike Purpura said at the impeachment trial.

True. Sondland's belief is his personal belief. It's like any of your beliefs, or mine: NOT EVIDENCE. I may believe that the earth is flat, I may believe that Trump is guilty as sin. What does the evidence say? As KIKI has so often pointed out, when Sondland asked Trump directly what he wanted, Trump said I want nothing.

Quote:
Democratic prosecutors retorted that senators should then subpoena Bolton and others who dealt directly with Trump. Republicans blocked that in a 51-49 vote against hearing from additional witnesses, leaving unresolved the question of precisely what Trump said and did.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS should have subpoenaed Bolton, and his aide, and they COULD have, if they had waited for a court ruling supporting a subpoena. I posted this already, maybe you should read it this time (I've chopped it down to accommodate the attention-deficit)

Quote:
Johnathan Turley
[synopsis: Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continued effort to ignore the obvious and catastrophic decision of the House leadership to rush the impeachment vote by Christmas rather than complete the record against President Donald Trump. This denial continues despite the fact that, after saying that they had no time to seek witnesses or favorable court orders, the House leadership then waited a month before released the articles of impeachment. Clearly, the record would have been stronger if the House waited and sought to compel witnesses. It also would have kept control of the record and the case. I encouraged them to vote in March or April, which would have given them plenty of time to secure additional testimony and certainly a number of favorable court orders. However, recognizing this obvious blunder would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.

Here is the column:end synopsis ]

If you've read this far, you got the gist, but here is a edited version of the details...

Quote:
... After the S

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:03 PM

I try to cast the same event with different characters to see if I'm being biased.

Let's say that Obama pressured Britain into investigating candidate Trump for possible treasonous agreements with foreign nations, that Obama held some "quid pro quo" over the UK to get them to participate. Impeachable?

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

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

1KIKI

Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:05 PM

Quote:
executive orders

Yeah those things presidents write in the wind.

If you care about what you post about, you better get your heinie in gear to help a democrat get elected.

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

SECOND

Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
On a philosophical note, karma knows when you harbor hatred or evil intent. It also knows when you're lying.

Karma knows when you are bullshitting, Signym. You wrote: "HOUSE DEMOCRATS should have subpoenaed Bolton, and his aide, and they COULD have, if they had waited for a court ruling supporting a subpoena." The key word is wait. The Democrats subpoenaed tax returns years ago and they will be waiting until after the election for Supreme Court to decide. Subpoena Bolton and the Democrats will have to wait until 2021. That is because Bolton wants you to buy his book in 2020, not get free information from the House of Representatives in committee hearing next year.

John Bolton has a $2 million book deal. That is why the Democrats did not subpoena Bolton. He has too much money to lose and so he and his lawyers will defy the Democrats and delay testifying until after his book comes out. The Democrats cannot arrest Bolton and force him to testify. All they can do is file paperwork with the courts and hope that someday, after the book is out, Bolton goes on a book promotional tour where he makes a stop at Congress to testify.
www.marketwatch.com/story/former-trump-adviser-john-bolton-has-a-2-mil
lion-book-deal-2019-11-10

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:49 PM

Well if that's the case, the assets from Bolton's work of fiction should be frozen. If somehow his testimony was the magic bullet that nobody else was able to give, but he's going to put it in a book released after the impeachment sham, then he shouldn't be able to profit from it.

Maybe the proceeds of the book can go to clean the shit off the streets of California.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Friday, February 7, 2020 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well if that's the case, the assets from Bolton's work of fiction should be frozen. If somehow his testimony was the magic bullet that nobody else was able to give, but he's going to put it in a book released after the impeachment sham, then he shouldn't be able to profit from it.

Maybe the proceeds of the book can go to clean the shit off the streets of California.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I agree. As long as Bolt-on has financial motives to either withold testimony, or (alternatively) bump book sales, his testimony is questionable. Remove financial incentives. It would be for the good of the nation.

*****

SECOND, your whinging does not explain why the House withdrew its subpoena for Bolt-on's aide, Kupperman. Supposedly they got a favorable court ruling but it was mooted by the House withdrawal.

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

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

SIGNYM

Friday, February 7, 2020 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I try to cast the same event with different characters to see if I'm being biased.

Let's say that Obama pressured Britain into investigating candidate Trump for possible treasonous agreements with foreign nations, that Obama held some "quid pro quo" over the UK to get them to participate. Impeachable?

Why, or why not?

More interestingly, when does it cross the boundary between impeachable or not? If there was no "quid pro quo", does that make a difference? If the allegation against candidate is less serious ... say, tax evasion in Scotland ... does THAT make a difference? What about if the person being investigated is not running for office at all? Would it be any different if Obama had directed his DOJ to do the investigation directly instead of thru a foreign nation? What if the allegations are patently false?

I think I learn a lot when I vary the circumstances and test my responses.

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

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, February 7, 2020 2:00 AM

88 posts?

Why have you 3 been feeding these 2 trolls for this long?

All under the headline of an insane delusional screeching of nonsense? BungBetty has a slew of these delusional screeching nonsense threads, not sure why this one has had you all feeding these Trolls.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 7, 2020 3:59 AM

Well, I apparently asked an unanswerable question. I hope it prompted some thoughts!

I'm still hoping that "the resistance" here would engage in a discussion about "what are Americans' interests?"

The only person who's attempted to discuss it is JO, and I find much to agree with and a lot to discuss, if he'd only get off the RUSSIARUSSIA! point.

Would actually like to discuss "what are Americans' interests with Trump supporters, conservatives and libertarians. Like with JO, I think there's a lot to agree on and a lot to discuss

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

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!