Post deleted by User.
That Impeachment Thing....
That impeachment thing....
If they call witnesses I kinda want to see the Republicans make it unfair and call only people they want and not whom the dems want
[+]
volkom said: »
If they call witnesses I kinda want to see the Republicans make it unfair and call only people they want and not whom the dems want
In other words, maintain the status quo.
DirectX said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
But to claim that there is “no evidence” of Ciaramella being the whistleblower is a lie. There is also evidence against Trump. You’re still hung up on the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is a very low bar. Proof is a very high bar. Both sides of an argument can present evidence that supports contradictory conclusions. It’s a largely subjective matter that is given structure in the law to reduce chaos. In a public forum, literally anyone can say, “I believe that the evidence is sufficient to support my conclusions.” Anyone else can say, “I believe that the evidence says the exact opposite.” And guess what? It’s completely irrelevant because it’s just opinion, but we debate this crap because it’s fun.
Trump is on trial based largely on hearsay evidence in a nation where there are laws, rules, and judges that dictate what is and and is not admissible as evidence. Generally speaking, hearsay is a weak legal argument that rarely results in convictions on its own. Your own personal interpretation of the facts and whether or not they constitute sufficient proof is your own opinion, so whether or not hearsay is enough for you personally is pure opinion and subject to zero laws. I have no problem with that, but I will debate it. Eric Ciaramella is not on trial, so he falls under the latter category exclusively.
Trump is on trial based largely on hearsay evidence in a nation where there are laws, rules, and judges that dictate what is and and is not admissible as evidence. Generally speaking, hearsay is a weak legal argument that rarely results in convictions on its own. Your own personal interpretation of the facts and whether or not they constitute sufficient proof is your own opinion, so whether or not hearsay is enough for you personally is pure opinion and subject to zero laws. I have no problem with that, but I will debate it. Eric Ciaramella is not on trial, so he falls under the latter category exclusively.
/rubtemples
I tried to dumb this down for you, but clearly it’s not working. We’ll take this one step at a time then. What was overheard in 2017 regarding Ciaramella was indeed hearsay. That was never in dispute, and it’s why I stated that it was “overheard” that it happened and not that “it happened”. That should be obvious.
[+]
Meanwhile, Schiff is completely making up far-fetched hypothetical situations involving Trump and Putin and trying to pass them off as reasons to convict Trump. What a circus this has become.
omg with this witness thing.
If they wanted to hear from them they should have called them in the house. The senate is NOT the house for discovery that is congress..I do not understand why this is so hard for people to get.
Rewind Clinton impeachment...did they have witnesses? Technically yes and technically not. They had 3..and they did not even appear before the Senate..they were videotaped answering questions from then house managers and snippits were played to the senate. Please stop trying to say that you want it run exactly like Clintons and then try to change the rules.
Link for doubters
If they wanted to hear from them they should have called them in the house. The senate is NOT the house for discovery that is congress..I do not understand why this is so hard for people to get.
Rewind Clinton impeachment...did they have witnesses? Technically yes and technically not. They had 3..and they did not even appear before the Senate..they were videotaped answering questions from then house managers and snippits were played to the senate. Please stop trying to say that you want it run exactly like Clintons and then try to change the rules.
Quote:
Three witnesses testified in the impeachment trial, but not in person in the Senate.
Just as is 2020, the House managers in 1999 clashed with the Senate over whether witnesses should be called to testify in the impeachment trial, and if so, how many. There was certainly historical precedent for witnesses: During the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, more than 40 witnesses had testified in the Senate.
In 1999, the House managers, after deciding not to attempt to compel President Clinton to testify, settled on three witnesses. But those witnesses did not come in person to the Senate chamber. They were interrogated on videotape, taking questions from House managers, with their own lawyers and President Clinton’s lawyers presents, in depositions presided over by senators.
Video snippets from the three depositions were then played in the Senate trial.
Just as is 2020, the House managers in 1999 clashed with the Senate over whether witnesses should be called to testify in the impeachment trial, and if so, how many. There was certainly historical precedent for witnesses: During the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, more than 40 witnesses had testified in the Senate.
In 1999, the House managers, after deciding not to attempt to compel President Clinton to testify, settled on three witnesses. But those witnesses did not come in person to the Senate chamber. They were interrogated on videotape, taking questions from House managers, with their own lawyers and President Clinton’s lawyers presents, in depositions presided over by senators.
Video snippets from the three depositions were then played in the Senate trial.
[+]
Odin.Slore said: »
If they wanted to hear from them they should have called them in the house.
Wasn't there an attempt at this?
Something something WH ignoring subpoenas and blocking witnesses from testifying?
[+]
Lakshmi.Leosin said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
If they wanted to hear from them they should have called them in the house.
Wasn't there an attempt at this?
Something something WH ignoring subpoenas and blocking witnesses from testifying?
This isn’t anything new. Congress issues subpoenas, the Executive Branch claims privilege, the matter is settled in court. In this case the Democrats did a rush job and decided that they couldn’t wait... before they did.
[+]
That excuse is really disingenuous.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
Asura.Eiryl said: »
That excuse is really disingenuous.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
I think you just accidentally made a good point. If you don’t like the laws as written, there’s a way to change them. Of all the ways that Congress has to do that, impeachment isn’t one of them, oddly enough.
[+]
Asura.Eiryl said: »
That excuse is really disingenuous.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
They know it takes literal years to fight courts over this nonsense. That whole pile of *** needs to be changed.
Sounds right on point.
You guys do realize that Trump isn’t the first to do that, right? It’s been going on for centuries.
[+]
Rubio just had a disasterous statement, Trump is guilty but it's not in the countrys best interest to remove him so I'm voting to not remove him. Uh ok bud.
"we're witnessing the coronation of Trump as King"
Viciouss said: »
Rubio just had a disasterous statement, Trump is guilty but it's not in the countrys best interest to remove him so I'm voting to not remove him. Uh ok bud.
That’s not what he said. If verbatim quotes truly make your case, then maybe share them instead of spinning.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
If you don’t like the laws as written, there’s a way to change them.
Indeed, and once all the work is done in drafting up any kind of "change", it'll go right into the bottom of the pile of NOPE on Mitch McConnell's desk.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Viciouss said: »
Rubio just had a disasterous statement, Trump is guilty but it's not in the countrys best interest to remove him so I'm voting to not remove him. Uh ok bud.
That’s not what he said. If verbatim quotes truly make your case, then maybe share them instead of spinning.
I can't post links from work for some reason, but yes, that's what he said. He believed the allegations are true but removing Trump is too dangerous for the country. Pretty spineless.
It is embarrassing how many people don't know the difference between the inquiry and the trial.
[+]
Lakshmi.Leosin said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
If you don’t like the laws as written, there’s a way to change them.
Indeed, and once all the work is done in drafting up any kind of "change", it'll go right into the bottom of the pile of NOPE on Mitch McConnell's desk.
Welcome to US politics? It’s the exact same thing when the shoe is on the other foot.
And it's an accurate report.
Viciouss said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Viciouss said: »
Rubio just had a disasterous statement, Trump is guilty but it's not in the countrys best interest to remove him so I'm voting to not remove him. Uh ok bud.
That’s not what he said. If verbatim quotes truly make your case, then maybe share them instead of spinning.
I can't post links from work for some reason, but yes, that's what he said. He believed the allegations are true but removing Trump is too dangerous for the country. Pretty spineless.
No, that’s not what he said.
Lakshmi.Leosin said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
If they wanted to hear from them they should have called them in the house.
Wasn't there an attempt at this?
Something something WH ignoring subpoenas and blocking witnesses from testifying?
to add something something second article of impeachment is obstruction of congress due to blocking witnesses and ignoring subpoenas which makes the talking point even more ridiculous.
DirectX said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
DirectX said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
But to claim that there is “no evidence” of Ciaramella being the whistleblower is a lie. There is also evidence against Trump. You’re still hung up on the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is a very low bar. Proof is a very high bar. Both sides of an argument can present evidence that supports contradictory conclusions. It’s a largely subjective matter that is given structure in the law to reduce chaos. In a public forum, literally anyone can say, “I believe that the evidence is sufficient to support my conclusions.” Anyone else can say, “I believe that the evidence says the exact opposite.” And guess what? It’s completely irrelevant because it’s just opinion, but we debate this crap because it’s fun.
Trump is on trial based largely on hearsay evidence in a nation where there are laws, rules, and judges that dictate what is and and is not admissible as evidence. Generally speaking, hearsay is a weak legal argument that rarely results in convictions on its own. Your own personal interpretation of the facts and whether or not they constitute sufficient proof is your own opinion, so whether or not hearsay is enough for you personally is pure opinion and subject to zero laws. I have no problem with that, but I will debate it. Eric Ciaramella is not on trial, so he falls under the latter category exclusively.
Trump is on trial based largely on hearsay evidence in a nation where there are laws, rules, and judges that dictate what is and and is not admissible as evidence. Generally speaking, hearsay is a weak legal argument that rarely results in convictions on its own. Your own personal interpretation of the facts and whether or not they constitute sufficient proof is your own opinion, so whether or not hearsay is enough for you personally is pure opinion and subject to zero laws. I have no problem with that, but I will debate it. Eric Ciaramella is not on trial, so he falls under the latter category exclusively.
/rubtemples
I tried to dumb this down for you, but clearly it’s not working. We’ll take this one step at a time then. What was overheard in 2017 regarding Ciaramella was indeed hearsay. That was never in dispute, and it’s why I stated that it was “overheard” that it happened and not that “it happened”. That should be obvious.
As mentioned before, the way you wrote about it was clearly written in a way that implies you're giving credence to the claim. Don't know why things need to be repeated to you so much as you repeatedly dance around every point made to you with your empty rhetoric posts.
Keep trying to be patronising though, it's humorous to see you so frustrated.
Ohh, so now you’re arguing semantics based on what you think I said. I’m so glad that a third party source has more authority on what I meant to say than I do. Must be logical result of all those “electrons”.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.