Topic: BERT
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #93,365
Trump has told over 13,000 documented, verifiable lies since taking office.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,057,426
Source?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,427
@previous (B)
> Source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/14/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/%3foutputType=amp
And many other sources. Google it.
> Source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/14/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/%3foutputType=amp
And many other sources. Google it.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,428
@1,057,426 (B)
Why ask? We both know you won't trust anything he could post. This Ukraine thing even had Trump himself release a transcript incriminating himself, but his supporters still believe him when he says he did nothing wrong.
Why ask? We both know you won't trust anything he could post. This Ukraine thing even had Trump himself release a transcript incriminating himself, but his supporters still believe him when he says he did nothing wrong.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,429
@1,057,427 (A)
@1,057,426 (B)
Here is a link to a searchable database:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
@1,057,426 (B)
Here is a link to a searchable database:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,430
@1,057,428 (C)Russiagate 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo is probably Trumps best marketing campaign yet. You'd think Democrats are working on getting him re-elected with this stunt. You know it's Joe Biden who incriminated himself, right?
Anonymous B double-posted this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,431
@1,057,429 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Oh for fucks sake... "It'S nOt A wAlL, iT's A bArRiEr! ToNaLd DrUmPtF iS a LiAr"
I suppose you think Epstein killed himself too, because that's what CNN reported?
“The wall is moving rapidly. Large sections are being built every day. More contracts are being given out.”
Fact Check:
No, Trump’s wall is not yet being built. Congress inserted specific language in its appropriations bill that none of the $1.57 billion appropriated for border protection may be used for prototypes of a concrete wall that Trump observed while in California. The money can be used only for bollard fencing and levee fencing, or for replacement of existing fencing. The same restrictions were included in the spending bill Trump signed on Feb. 15, 2019. Trump appears to acknowledge the renovations, except he persists in claiming it is a wall. All told, Congress has funded about 175 miles of barriers.
Fact Check:
No, Trump’s wall is not yet being built. Congress inserted specific language in its appropriations bill that none of the $1.57 billion appropriated for border protection may be used for prototypes of a concrete wall that Trump observed while in California. The money can be used only for bollard fencing and levee fencing, or for replacement of existing fencing. The same restrictions were included in the spending bill Trump signed on Feb. 15, 2019. Trump appears to acknowledge the renovations, except he persists in claiming it is a wall. All told, Congress has funded about 175 miles of barriers.
Oh for fucks sake... "It'S nOt A wAlL, iT's A bArRiEr! ToNaLd DrUmPtF iS a LiAr"
I suppose you think Epstein killed himself too, because that's what CNN reported?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,433
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,434
@1,057,431 (B)
Here is the conservative Washington Examiner also agreeing that essentially no new miles of wall have been built. You are not obligated to defend this trainwreck of a presidency btw, unless you're on their payroll in which case, well done!
Here is the conservative Washington Examiner also agreeing that essentially no new miles of wall have been built. You are not obligated to defend this trainwreck of a presidency btw, unless you're on their payroll in which case, well done!
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,435
@1,057,433 (A)
ToNaLd DrUmPtF sAiD "gOoD mOrNiNg" BuT iT wAs 12:01 AnD tHaT iS tHe AfTeRnOoN ToNaLd DrUmPtF lIeD
ToNaLd DrUmPtF sAiD "gOoD mOrNiNg" BuT iT wAs 12:01 AnD tHaT iS tHe AfTeRnOoN ToNaLd DrUmPtF lIeD
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 58 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,436
@previous (B)
Nope. They are documented and verifiable. I would tell you to read the article, but like your cult worship object Trump, you are semi-illiterate.
Nope. They are documented and verifiable. I would tell you to read the article, but like your cult worship object Trump, you are semi-illiterate.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 41 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,437
@1,057,430 (B)
"But Hunter Biden!" has become the new "But Hillary's emails!"
Even if what your cult leader tells you about the Bidens is true (I'm not saying that it is), that does not somehow negate all the president's wrongdoings. You whataboutisms are tired and irrelevant.
@1,057,431 (B)
Yes, calling it a wall when, in fact, it is not a wall, makes it a false statement, or misleading at the very best. What are your excuses for the other 13,434 false or misleading statements?
"But Hunter Biden!" has become the new "But Hillary's emails!"
Even if what your cult leader tells you about the Bidens is true (I'm not saying that it is), that does not somehow negate all the president's wrongdoings. You whataboutisms are tired and irrelevant.
@1,057,431 (B)
Yes, calling it a wall when, in fact, it is not a wall, makes it a false statement, or misleading at the very best. What are your excuses for the other 13,434 false or misleading statements?
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,440
It looks like Trump wins again!Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 42 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,441
@1,057,430 (B)
You know, what? Okay, let's play this game.
Here is an annotated copy of the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian President.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/25/donald-trump-ukraine-call-analysis-000039
And here is a recently-released transcript where the US's top diplomat in Ukraine corroborated that Trump was withholding aid to try and force an investigation into a political rival.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191106taylor_transcipt_excerpts38964.pdf
Please explain how this is not massively incriminating.
You know, what? Okay, let's play this game.
Here is an annotated copy of the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian President.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/25/donald-trump-ukraine-call-analysis-000039
And here is a recently-released transcript where the US's top diplomat in Ukraine corroborated that Trump was withholding aid to try and force an investigation into a political rival.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191106taylor_transcipt_excerpts38964.pdf
Please explain how this is not massively incriminating.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,443
@previous (C)
His only argumentative strategy is to assume the person he is talking to is as shamelessly partisan and immune to reason as he is, and then just like vomit up a bunch of irrelevant talking points thinking that it makes him look better.
If you say "I think Trump is corrupt and I also think it was wrong for Biden's son to be on the board of Burisma." he has no coherent response because his purported worldview is entirely devoid of nuance.
His only argumentative strategy is to assume the person he is talking to is as shamelessly partisan and immune to reason as he is, and then just like vomit up a bunch of irrelevant talking points thinking that it makes him look better.
If you say "I think Trump is corrupt and I also think it was wrong for Biden's son to be on the board of Burisma." he has no coherent response because his purported worldview is entirely devoid of nuance.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,445
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well, do you think some ambassadors opinion is massively incriminating?
Well, do you think some ambassadors opinion is massively incriminating?
Anonymous B double-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,446
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 50 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,448
@1,057,445 (B)
I think the ambassador who donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration to buy the ambassadorship amending his sworn Congressional testimony to say that there was an explicit quid pro quo is probably bad news for the president. You are free to disagree but I don't think you can do so easily.
I think the ambassador who donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration to buy the ambassadorship amending his sworn Congressional testimony to say that there was an explicit quid pro quo is probably bad news for the president. You are free to disagree but I don't think you can do so easily.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,453
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,455
@previous (B)
Please explain to me what you think hearsay is, and what exceptions may or may not apply in this case.
Please explain to me what you think hearsay is, and what exceptions may or may not apply in this case.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,461
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Hearsay is a statement made outside of a court, not in front of a judge or jury so observe their demeanor, and hasn't been cross-examined.
Hearsay is a statement made outside of a court, not in front of a judge or jury so observe their demeanor, and hasn't been cross-examined.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,462
@previous (B)
Ok so since we aren't in any kind of court that's totally irrelevant. What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule that might make this admissible even if this were in a court?
Ok so since we aren't in any kind of court that's totally irrelevant. What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule that might make this admissible even if this were in a court?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,464
@1,057,461 (B)
And I'm sure you've never taken anything a Democrat said outside of a courtroom and drawn conclusions from it.
And I'm sure you've never taken anything a Democrat said outside of a courtroom and drawn conclusions from it.
Liberal Faggot joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,466
There are 231 genders.
Tranny lives matter
Got drunk then pregnant? Sure just kill the baby like throwing away an over ripe apple.
Tranny lives matter
Got drunk then pregnant? Sure just kill the baby like throwing away an over ripe apple.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,468
@1,057,462 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No, that's totally relevant. Statements offered to prove the truth they assert.
Only Republicans believe in due process. Just ask Kavanaugh
No, that's totally relevant. Statements offered to prove the truth they assert.
Only Republicans believe in due process. Just ask Kavanaugh
Anonymous B double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,470
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,472
@1,057,443 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This is what seriously creeps me out about guys like him, Bert, and the other hardcore conservatives of today. There is zero nuance. Trump is always good and anyone who disagrees with him is always bad.
How far can it go? As long as he continues with his agenda, could Trump be caught on camera groping or assaulting someone and still have his base stay totally loyal? I remember people on here defending that Republican who openly assaulted a journalist, so why not?
This is what seriously creeps me out about guys like him, Bert, and the other hardcore conservatives of today. There is zero nuance. Trump is always good and anyone who disagrees with him is always bad.
How far can it go? As long as he continues with his agenda, could Trump be caught on camera groping or assaulting someone and still have his base stay totally loyal? I remember people on here defending that Republican who openly assaulted a journalist, so why not?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,473
@1,057,468 (B)
Again, one simple question. Hearsay is admissible into court if it falls under one of a number of exceptions. This is entirely consistent with due process. Name one of them that might apply here, and why it might be admissible.
Again, one simple question. Hearsay is admissible into court if it falls under one of a number of exceptions. This is entirely consistent with due process. Name one of them that might apply here, and why it might be admissible.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,474
@1,057,472 (C)
But there is only evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. From his own statements. Don't drag every other event that has ever happened into this. Thanks
But there is only evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. From his own statements. Don't drag every other event that has ever happened into this. Thanks
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,475
@1,057,472 (C)
It'll go as far as Trump's electoral victories go. If he loses in 2020 they'll be mad and agitate for civil war and then move on and do other things by 2022 because that particular well will have run dry.
It'll go as far as Trump's electoral victories go. If he loses in 2020 they'll be mad and agitate for civil war and then move on and do other things by 2022 because that particular well will have run dry.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,476
@1,057,470 (B)
It was a very simple concept. If you've ever taken anything a Democrat said outside of a courtroom and held them to it, then you're being staggeringly hypocritical by trying to handwave this with "it wasn't in a court".
I like to think that on some level you know that this is evidence of wrongdoing and are just trying to argue because you're so partisan.
It was a very simple concept. If you've ever taken anything a Democrat said outside of a courtroom and held them to it, then you're being staggeringly hypocritical by trying to handwave this with "it wasn't in a court".
I like to think that on some level you know that this is evidence of wrongdoing and are just trying to argue because you're so partisan.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,477
@1,057,473 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
A judge decides on the statements intended purpose, and instructs the jury how to consider the hearsay evidence.
A judge decides on the statements intended purpose, and instructs the jury how to consider the hearsay evidence.
Anonymous B double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,478
@1,057,476 (C)
Hearsay is not evidence of wrongdoing, regardless of how you imagine your opponents to be.
Hearsay is not evidence of wrongdoing, regardless of how you imagine your opponents to be.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,482
@1,057,477 (B)
@previous (B)
Dude just quit while you're behind. Hearsay is absolutely evidence that a crime is committed, it just may or may not be admissible at trial depending on these exceptions. (This is what I was asking for and literally all you had to do was Google the phrase "hearsay exceptions" to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)
Here is an example of hearsay. A cop is talking to an informant, and the informant says, "I heard that John Smith robbed that bank over on 12th street." After hearing that information, do you think the cops will:
1. Say, "Oh gee man I'd like to investigate but that is just hearsay. I'll wait until John confesses willfully on camera."
2. Use this evidence to investigate whether John actually did rob the bank.
Not to spoil the answer, but #2 is the correct choice. This is functionally what is happening now, only instead of cops it's the House. They received testimony that wrongdoing may have been committed. They are investigating based on that evidence. If they find that the evidence is sufficient, then they will charge him (vote to impeach and send him to trial in the Senate. There he can raise hearsay objections or whatever he wants. If Sondland et al. are subpoenaed and called to testify (Dems will 100% try to do that) then every "hearsay" complaint would be moot because the reason the hearsay rule exists is to prevent testimony/evidence that can't be cross-examined by the defense. If the person whose testimony is allegedly hearsay is in the courtroom, it isn't hearsay.
@previous (B)
Dude just quit while you're behind. Hearsay is absolutely evidence that a crime is committed, it just may or may not be admissible at trial depending on these exceptions. (This is what I was asking for and literally all you had to do was Google the phrase "hearsay exceptions" to pretend you knew what you were talking about.)
Here is an example of hearsay. A cop is talking to an informant, and the informant says, "I heard that John Smith robbed that bank over on 12th street." After hearing that information, do you think the cops will:
1. Say, "Oh gee man I'd like to investigate but that is just hearsay. I'll wait until John confesses willfully on camera."
2. Use this evidence to investigate whether John actually did rob the bank.
Not to spoil the answer, but #2 is the correct choice. This is functionally what is happening now, only instead of cops it's the House. They received testimony that wrongdoing may have been committed. They are investigating based on that evidence. If they find that the evidence is sufficient, then they will charge him (vote to impeach and send him to trial in the Senate. There he can raise hearsay objections or whatever he wants. If Sondland et al. are subpoenaed and called to testify (Dems will 100% try to do that) then every "hearsay" complaint would be moot because the reason the hearsay rule exists is to prevent testimony/evidence that can't be cross-examined by the defense. If the person whose testimony is allegedly hearsay is in the courtroom, it isn't hearsay.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,484
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If the guy is under oath, in front of a judge, and is cross examined then it's not hearsay it's testimony. I said that earlier.
At the moment everything is hearsay, not evidence. There is no evidence yet.
A cop can use statements to continue his inquiries, but they are not evidence until they are in court.
Anon C thinks hearsay is evidence, and that cross examination doesn't matter. This is not how it works.
If the guy is under oath, in front of a judge, and is cross examined then it's not hearsay it's testimony. I said that earlier.
At the moment everything is hearsay, not evidence. There is no evidence yet.
A cop can use statements to continue his inquiries, but they are not evidence until they are in court.
Anon C thinks hearsay is evidence, and that cross examination doesn't matter. This is not how it works.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,486
@previous (B)
No, that's not the point I'm making. I'm not talking about anyone being prosecuted by a court.
I'm talking about members of the public drawing conclusions from things politicians have said and done. We both know that you do this all the time about Democrats with your threads here. For you to suddenly say that we can't infer anything from what this ambassador said because he didn't say it in a court is pretty weak.
You initially tried to dismiss him as "some ambassador" @1,057,445 (B) , but I suppose you thought that this hearsay thing was an easier dodge. Easier than admitting that your idol did something wrong, anyway.
No, that's not the point I'm making. I'm not talking about anyone being prosecuted by a court.
I'm talking about members of the public drawing conclusions from things politicians have said and done. We both know that you do this all the time about Democrats with your threads here. For you to suddenly say that we can't infer anything from what this ambassador said because he didn't say it in a court is pretty weak.
You initially tried to dismiss him as "some ambassador" @1,057,445 (B) , but I suppose you thought that this hearsay thing was an easier dodge. Easier than admitting that your idol did something wrong, anyway.
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,487
@1,057,473 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If they judge on the Transcript of the call Trump is exonerated..
They have royally fucked up..
Praise Jesus..
If they judge on the Transcript of the call Trump is exonerated..
They have royally fucked up..
Praise Jesus..
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,490
@1,057,486 (C)
You are drawing conclusions from someone who thinks someone else meant something else and not what they said.
That's retarded. I can dismiss that, yes.
You are drawing conclusions from someone who thinks someone else meant something else and not what they said.
That's retarded. I can dismiss that, yes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,602
@1,057,484 (B)
You are mixing up words in a way that has no correspondence to anything resembling legal reality. Testimony is hearsay. Testimony is evidence. Testimony can be permissible evidence in a court of law in many scenarios, as I linked in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony is one kind of hearsay evidence. There are other kinds such as official records etc. All of that COULD be legally permissible evidence at trial. The House is not currently putting the President on trial, so even if you were right that every single thing they have looked at is inadmissible in a court of law, it is still, legally and colloquially, evidence. "Evidence" doesn't mean "evidence legally admissible in a court of law". Evidence doesn't mean "irrefutable, undeniable 100% certain ironclad proof beyond any and all doubt." It just means...evidence.
Let me give you an example. Suppose, hypothetically, there was a special counsel investigating a president for misconduct, and then he received an illegally recorded tape of another person saying that she "fooled around" with the President in the Oval Office. Would that be sufficient evidence in your mind to launch an impeachment investigation into the President for sexual misconduct? It's like thirdhand testimony at best, and who even knows if you could validate that easily? It was also collected in flagrant violation of federal wiretapping laws, etc. The person who recorded it clearly had a grudge against the President and was an agent of the rival political party, or a disgruntled deep state agent. It was the worst kind of hearsay and character assassination, and should be ignored.
HOWEVER, what if I told you that President's name was William Jefferson Clinton, that woman on the recording was named Monica Lewinsky, the woman recording it was named Linda Tripp, and the Special Counsel was named Kenneth Starr? And what if I told you that tape was instrumental in bringing about the perjury charges that ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment?
Was it wrong then? I don't think so. I think Clinton should have been impeached. I think he should have been thrown out of office, or at least had the decency to resign. Hearsay is totally fine to bring up in the impeachment process. Hearsay is totally fine to use as the primary basis of beginning an investigation. I just don't get your position at all.
You are mixing up words in a way that has no correspondence to anything resembling legal reality. Testimony is hearsay. Testimony is evidence. Testimony can be permissible evidence in a court of law in many scenarios, as I linked in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Testimony is one kind of hearsay evidence. There are other kinds such as official records etc. All of that COULD be legally permissible evidence at trial. The House is not currently putting the President on trial, so even if you were right that every single thing they have looked at is inadmissible in a court of law, it is still, legally and colloquially, evidence. "Evidence" doesn't mean "evidence legally admissible in a court of law". Evidence doesn't mean "irrefutable, undeniable 100% certain ironclad proof beyond any and all doubt." It just means...evidence.
Let me give you an example. Suppose, hypothetically, there was a special counsel investigating a president for misconduct, and then he received an illegally recorded tape of another person saying that she "fooled around" with the President in the Oval Office. Would that be sufficient evidence in your mind to launch an impeachment investigation into the President for sexual misconduct? It's like thirdhand testimony at best, and who even knows if you could validate that easily? It was also collected in flagrant violation of federal wiretapping laws, etc. The person who recorded it clearly had a grudge against the President and was an agent of the rival political party, or a disgruntled deep state agent. It was the worst kind of hearsay and character assassination, and should be ignored.
HOWEVER, what if I told you that President's name was William Jefferson Clinton, that woman on the recording was named Monica Lewinsky, the woman recording it was named Linda Tripp, and the Special Counsel was named Kenneth Starr? And what if I told you that tape was instrumental in bringing about the perjury charges that ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment?
Was it wrong then? I don't think so. I think Clinton should have been impeached. I think he should have been thrown out of office, or at least had the decency to resign. Hearsay is totally fine to bring up in the impeachment process. Hearsay is totally fine to use as the primary basis of beginning an investigation. I just don't get your position at all.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,605
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,606
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,609
@1,057,602 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
All I see is you talking about is for like the ,3rd time today saying Trump is not entitled to due process...b cause the impeachment is not technically an actual trial..
THAT right there should be an e.barrasment to us all..
All I see is you talking about is for like the ,3rd time today saying Trump is not entitled to due process...b cause the impeachment is not technically an actual trial..
THAT right there should be an e.barrasment to us all..
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,613
@previous (F)
That's just how it works. If you don't like it, you can amend the constitution. Republicans have been present at every deposition. Democrats are publicly releasing the testimony they collected. Trump needs 67 senators to vote against him for there to be any material consequences for him. He has incredibly favorable odds of beating this. I'd say like 95-99% chance he walks out with nothing more than a few bruises to his ego. Even if convicted in the Senate he doesn't go to jail, he just loses his current job. This is so incredibly overwrought.
That's just how it works. If you don't like it, you can amend the constitution. Republicans have been present at every deposition. Democrats are publicly releasing the testimony they collected. Trump needs 67 senators to vote against him for there to be any material consequences for him. He has incredibly favorable odds of beating this. I'd say like 95-99% chance he walks out with nothing more than a few bruises to his ego. Even if convicted in the Senate he doesn't go to jail, he just loses his current job. This is so incredibly overwrought.
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,616
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's just the icing on the smear job cake..
The Liberalcrats are despicable!
It's a sad time for our country..
It's just the icing on the smear job cake..
The Liberalcrats are despicable!
It's a sad time for our country..
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,623
@1,057,609 (F)
"Due process" in the sense you're referring to is irrelevant here. An impeachment inquiry isn't a criminal investigation. There is no trial yet, and when the trial does happen, it is not a trial in the judicial sense. No "technically" about it; it's more like a job review than it is an "actual trial."
"Due process" in the sense you're referring to is irrelevant here. An impeachment inquiry isn't a criminal investigation. There is no trial yet, and when the trial does happen, it is not a trial in the judicial sense. No "technically" about it; it's more like a job review than it is an "actual trial."
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,629
@1,057,602 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The first hand account of someone who was there at the time and actually involved in the thing that happened? That's not hearsay. Can the tape be used as evidence? Idk I'm not a judge in the case.
But someone who wasn't there, didn't hear anything, and doesn't have first hand knowledge of what actually happened? That's hearsay. That's inadmissible.
The first hand account of someone who was there at the time and actually involved in the thing that happened? That's not hearsay. Can the tape be used as evidence? Idk I'm not a judge in the case.
But someone who wasn't there, didn't hear anything, and doesn't have first hand knowledge of what actually happened? That's hearsay. That's inadmissible.
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,637
Mental disorder
(Edited 1 minute later.)
globble joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,729
At least he has a funny face
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 17 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,730
@1,057,629 (B)
An alleged recording of someone IS HEARSAY. You can't cross examine a recording. You can't put a recording on the witness stand.
Hearsay is always evidence and sometimes admissible evidence in a trial. It is also used as evidence BEFORE a trial in the investigation of the alleged crime or wrongdoing. I've belabored that point enough.
Whether or not the whistleblower is hearsay (it is) evidence (it is) or admissible at trial (maybe), it led to sworn testimony of Sondland who says there was an explicit demand that tied release of the aid to a public announcement of an investigation into Burisma, among many other testimonies by people who will be called as witnesses in the Senate trial. That is what matters. Focusing on the whistleblower is a total smokescreen to avoid having to discuss the specifics of the wrongdoing.
An alleged recording of someone IS HEARSAY. You can't cross examine a recording. You can't put a recording on the witness stand.
Hearsay is always evidence and sometimes admissible evidence in a trial. It is also used as evidence BEFORE a trial in the investigation of the alleged crime or wrongdoing. I've belabored that point enough.
Whether or not the whistleblower is hearsay (it is) evidence (it is) or admissible at trial (maybe), it led to sworn testimony of Sondland who says there was an explicit demand that tied release of the aid to a public announcement of an investigation into Burisma, among many other testimonies by people who will be called as witnesses in the Senate trial. That is what matters. Focusing on the whistleblower is a total smokescreen to avoid having to discuss the specifics of the wrongdoing.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,833
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Maybe it's not a good idea to believe everything people say, and wait for evidence. It might all be bullshit
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,838
Grover !jqZkAz4Usg joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,057,840
I'll vote for him again