Dork Democrat Says During Hearing That Hearsay Is Better Than Direct Evidence

[Care4all]

When they have no evidence, and hearsay is all they have, what do you expect the demoncrats to say.

Stop obstructing the investigation and allow first hand subpoenaed witnesses to testify, is the only way to settle it.

Funny how the Rs are screaming about this when THEY are the ones preventing it....

Let's have Mulveney, Giuliani, the 2 Russian Ukrainian American thug partners, Bolton, his assistant, etc and the President testify, they were first hand.....

Do you think Giuliani went rogue, or Sondland went rogue and the President was unaware??

 

[jameny5]

Actually - All "We" have to do is listen to how Donald and his "cronies" committed his crimes. Evidence or no evidence - we can surmise that Trump is tainted goods and abused his power! It's not rocket science. Just sit back and listen!

 

[Maxdeath]

There are democrat representatives that are talking changing party because they claim that the democrat party is no longer what it used to be.
Hearsay is still not admissible no matter how someone wants to spin it. I have no doubt we will have many attempt to spin it as proof positive.

 

[kyzr]

Actually - All "We" have to do is listen to how Donald and his "cronies" committed his crimes. Evidence or no evidence - we can surmise that Trump is tainted goods and abused his power! It's not rocket science. Just sit back and listen!

One more time:
1. What is the specific crime that Trump committed?
2. Is that crime serious enough to justify impeachment?

hint: Trump did not demand that Ukraine fabricate crimes for the Bidens, like Hillary and the fake Steele Dossier did to Trump. There was no QPQ. Ukraine got the aid, and no investigation was required. WTF is wrong with that outcome?

 

[Maxdeath]

Actually - All "We" have to do is listen to how Donald and his "cronies" committed his crimes. Evidence or no evidence - we can surmise that Trump is tainted goods and abused his power! It's not rocket science. Just sit back and listen!

Good thing you think it isn't rocket science you would fail. But laws actually are not formed on feelings nor half baked thoughts.

 

[Claudette]

If the dems say hearsay is more reliable (CNN), then why is it generally inadmissible? Hearsay - Wikipedia

There is "double-hearsay" in the wiki article. The democrats are trying to use "Quadruple-hearsay" as truth?!

Ken Starr said it best, there is no evidence of a crime, let alone an impeachable crime.

Yup and hearsay is hearsay and isn't allowed in a court of law. Though the law doesn't seem to mean much to these Dem imbeciles.

They are still batting 0 and are paving the way to a Trump win in 2020. I sure hope they keep this up for the rest of 2019 and into 2020. I sure appreciate their ineptness. LOL

 

[iceberg]

When they have no evidence, and hearsay is all they have, what do you expect the demoncrats to say.

Stop obstructing the investigation and allow first hand subpoenaed witnesses to testify, is the only way to settle it.

Funny how the Rs are screaming about this when THEY are the ones preventing it....

Let's have Mulveney, Giuliani, the 2 Russian Ukrainian American thug partners, Bolton, his assistant, etc and the President testify, they were first hand.....

Do you think Giuliani went rogue, or Sondland went rogue and the President was unaware??

what investigation?

they claim of the president is interferring in foreign policy is stupid.
The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy'
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?
---
so those under that impression and trying to sell it, are liars; or at LEAST very incorrect in their statement. but it gives you a place to hide, doesn't it?

they then say heresay evidence is allowed but didn't define under what parameters, again, giving you a hamburger for lunch to feed others their bullshit.

would deleting 33k mails obstruct investigations?
would illegal FISA warrants lead to incorrect investigations?
would destroying electronic devices that contained this info be destroying evidence?

you dance around and say the right is doing the very things the left did for so long yet now, "this is different".

as for "how did the president NOT KNOW" - careful. obama will be held to that same standard for illegal activities like fast n furious. but wait - that was different, wasn't it?

 

[iceberg]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

great. do you really want a law of the land that passes out judgements on heresay?

well outside of it pertaining to trump cause that's where it will certainly go.

 

[Crepitus]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

if it exists the dems sure are hiding it pretty good, cause I havent seen any,,

That's because tRump told you not to.

Once you shake that, it's everywhere.

 

[Maxdeath]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

great. do you really want a law of the land that passes out judgements on heresay?

well outside of it pertaining to trump cause that's where it will certainly go.

They want anything that will help them tarnish or get rid of Trump. The thought is not how things will play out further down the line. It is all about the current moment.

The fact is that use hearsay now. Next year it will be use it to get rid of someone else. Then it will be used again and again until no one can stay in office.

 

[progressive hunter]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

if it exists the dems sure are hiding it pretty good, cause I havent seen any,,

That's because tRump told you not to.

Once you shake that, it's everywhere.

hes never talked to me,,,is he in the room with you now???

if so seek mental healthcare

 

[iceberg]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

great. do you really want a law of the land that passes out judgements on heresay?

well outside of it pertaining to trump cause that's where it will certainly go.

They want anything that will help them tarnish or get rid of Trump. The thought is not how things will play out further down the line. It is all about the current moment.

The fact is that use hearsay now. Next year it will be use it to get rid of someone else. Then it will be used again and again until no one can stay in office.

and if it "succeeds" then it will most certainly be used back at them and they will most certainly cry foul. as they should.

but they should not be going to it now cause as bad as they look doing it, they're going to look a lot worse when they cry about this "standard" being used against their guy/gal.

 

[BlindBoo]

What is the specific crime that Trump committed?

The "Guns for Dirt" plot was an extortion plot involving US aid and soliciting foreign aid in generating dirt to use against domestic political rivals.

Is that crime serious enough to justify impeachment?

Yes.

 

[Crepitus]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

great. do you really want a law of the land that passes out judgements on heresay?

well outside of it pertaining to trump cause that's where it will certainly go.

They want anything that will help them tarnish or get rid of Trump. The thought is not how things will play out further down the line. It is all about the current moment.

The fact is that use hearsay now. Next year it will be use it to get rid of someone else. Then it will be used again and again until no one can stay in office.

You guys need a room?

Also, you're ignoring a few facts.

But that's pretty much how you kids rationalize shit.

 

[OldLady]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

 

[Crepitus]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

if it exists the dems sure are hiding it pretty good, cause I havent seen any,,

That's because tRump told you not to.

Once you shake that, it's everywhere.

hes never talked to me,,,is he in the room with you now???

if so seek mental healthcare

Do you expect me to believe you are stupid enough to believe that?

 

[OldLady]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

And that post is loaded with "feelz", as shown by other posters, so I won't reinvent the wheel on that one.

Yes, I expressed my opinion on a political message board. How extraordinarily inappropriate, huh?

 

[progressive hunter]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

if it exists the dems sure are hiding it pretty good, cause I havent seen any,,

That's because tRump told you not to.

Once you shake that, it's everywhere.

hes never talked to me,,,is he in the room with you now???



if so seek mental healthcare

Do you expect me to believe you are stupid enough to believe that?

WHAT,,, that hes in the room with you???

or that you need mental healthcare??

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The hearsay impeachment. Libs really are outdoing themselves. Lol.

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.