Hearsay on its own is useless.93henfan wrote:More Dem nuttiness. Not only must the accused prove their innocence, but apparently hearsay is much better than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up:
No, the whistleblowers complaint is being called hearsay by the Republicans. It’s second hand knowledge and therefore it’s unreliable, fake news, blah blah blah.93henfan wrote:Hearsay that's been corroborated? You mean like somebody who was an eyewitness? That's not hearsay. That's direct evidence.
If somebody was there, like apparently this Army dude you mention, then that would be direct evidence, not hearsay.Ibanez wrote:No, the whistleblowers complaint is being called hearsay by the Republicans. It’s second hand knowledge and therefore it’s unreliable, fake news, blah blah blah.93henfan wrote:Hearsay that's been corroborated? You mean like somebody who was an eyewitness? That's not hearsay. That's direct evidence.
However, people with direct knowledge like the Army Lt Col, have corroborated the story.
That’s what I mean. Apolitically, am I off base or misunderstanding something? I’m more than happy to admit I’m wrong or I misunderstood something.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that the Army Lt with direct knowledge, has confirmed what the whistleblower reported. And if you recall, The whistleblowers complaint has been called hearsay...and it is. It’s second hand knowledge which has been confirmed by someone that has direct knowledge.93henfan wrote:If somebody was there, like apparently this Army dude you mention, then that would be direct evidence, not hearsay.Ibanez wrote: No, the whistleblowers complaint is being called hearsay by the Republicans. It’s second hand knowledge and therefore it’s unreliable, fake news, blah blah blah.
However, people with direct knowledge like the Army Lt Col, have corroborated the story.
That’s what I mean. Apolitically, am I off base or misunderstanding something? I’m more than happy to admit I’m wrong or I misunderstood something.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the whistleblower wasn't there, that's hearsay.
Two different things. Saying that hearsay is better than direct evidence is ludicrous. Just like saying the accused has to prove their innocence in the United States is ludicrous.
Now cue Flaggy posting the Mike Tyson ludicrith meme.
The Army guy's testimony is credible if he has direct knowledge. The whistleblower is a partisan hack with an agenda who has no direct knowledge.Ibanez wrote:That isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that the Army Lt with direct knowledge, has confirmed what the whistleblower reported. And if you recall, The whistleblowers complaint has been called hearsay...and it is. It’s second hand knowledge which has been confirmed by someone that has direct knowledge.93henfan wrote:
If somebody was there, like apparently this Army dude you mention, then that would be direct evidence, not hearsay.
If the whistleblower wasn't there, that's hearsay.
Two different things. Saying that hearsay is better than direct evidence is ludicrous. Just like saying the accused has to prove their innocence in the United States is ludicrous.
Now cue Flaggy posting the Mike Tyson ludicrith meme.
Therefore, even though the complaint is based off of second hand knowledge, it is credible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Partisanship aside, the whistleblowers complaint has been deemed credible/reliable by the IG and people with direct knowledge.93henfan wrote:The Army guy's testimony is credible if he has direct knowledge. The whistleblower is a partisan hack with an agenda who has no direct knowledge.Ibanez wrote: That isn’t what I’m saying. I’m saying that the Army Lt with direct knowledge, has confirmed what the whistleblower reported. And if you recall, The whistleblowers complaint has been called hearsay...and it is. It’s second hand knowledge which has been confirmed by someone that has direct knowledge.
Therefore, even though the complaint is based off of second hand knowledge, it is credible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have been watching little FNC.Ibanez wrote:It’s still clear you don’t understand what’s going on.BDKJMU wrote: We’re not at a Senate trial yet.
Trump’s tweet:
You think that’s somehow intimidating?Take your skirt off and don’t be such a puss.
And set down the bottle..
You’re such a lemming. Think for yourself, because Fox isn’t doing you any favors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The point is that they have been doing plenty of other things. The idea that the only thing they're doing is impeachment and that's all they are focused on is false. It's a Republican talking point that is just as false as most of the Republican talking points are.HI54UNI wrote:Quantity does not mean quality.JohnStOnge wrote:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... peachment/
It's not that they haven't been doing anything else. It's that we have divided government.
At this point in history what we need is to get the Republicans out of the way. Eliminate the Republican Party as a factor and the country will progress.
Then maybe we can talk about forming a conservative Party that has some semblance of integrity and go from there.
Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?BDKJMU wrote:I have been watching little FNC.Ibanez wrote: It’s still clear you don’t understand what’s going on.
You’re such a lemming. Think for yourself, because Fox isn’t doing you any favors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I challenge you to get your point accords in 25 words or less.JohnStOnge wrote:The point is that they have been doing plenty of other things. The idea that the only thing they're doing is impeachment and that's all they are focused on is false. It's a Republican talking point that is just as false as most of the Republican talking points are.HI54UNI wrote:
Quantity does not mean quality.
It's not really valid to have the Republican Senate squelch most of the bills the House sends over then say the House isn't doing anything other than impeachment.
Four years ago I would never have thought I'd ever say this but I'll say it again: What this country needs right now is for the Republican Party to be relegated to irrelevance. The country would be better off if the Democrats were in control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. We would have more intelligent governance.
Easy chief!Ibanez wrote:Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?BDKJMU wrote: I have been watching little FNC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yet they have a strong right bias and use targeted language and are misleading. They’re like MSNBC.SeattleGriz wrote:Easy chief!Ibanez wrote: Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conservative Treehouse follows China trade and Russia Collusion well for a blog. A lot of small details.
Things you hamfistedly ignore.
I get that, if you aren't familiar with bias. Everyone on this board can read through that.Ibanez wrote:Yet they have a strong right bias and use targeted language and are misleading. They’re like MSNBC.SeattleGriz wrote:
Easy chief!
Conservative Treehouse follows China trade and Russia Collusion well for a blog. A lot of small details.
Things you hamfistedly ignore.
Reuter’s is a good site to start with
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SeattleGriz wrote:Easy chief!Ibanez wrote: Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conservative Treehouse follows China trade and Russia Collusion well for a blog. A lot of small details.
Things you hamfistedly ignore.
But, does that fascism smell good?Aho Old Guy wrote:
SeattleGriz prefers JWND*SeattleGriz wrote:
Easy chief!
Conservative Treehouse follows China trade and Russia Collusion well for a blog. A lot of small details.
Things you hamfistedly ignore.
*Jesus World Nut Daily
(no offense)
"True Patriots and Real Americans"? __ Conservative Treehouse smells like Fascism to me.
What do you expect?93henfan wrote:More Dem nuttiness. Not only must the accused prove their innocence, but apparently hearsay is much better than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up:
They'll get there eventually. They're a bit slow on the uptake.CID1990 wrote:What do you expect?93henfan wrote:More Dem nuttiness. Not only must the accused prove their innocence, but apparently hearsay is much better than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up:
Pelosi is scoring own goals every day now.
Starting with the claim that what Trump did was bribery. It isn’t. And that’s a problem fir the Dems because bribery means that both the quid and the quo have to be shown.
If Pelosi’s staffers were thinking clearly instead of just trying to dumb things down so their constituency will understand what they are accusing Trump with.... they wouldn’t go with bribery. They would go with a Federal statute that fits almost exactly with what actually (probably) happened. But maybe extortion is too big of a word I guess.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/601
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly.93henfan wrote:They'll get there eventually. They're a bit slow on the uptake.CID1990 wrote:
What do you expect?
Pelosi is scoring own goals every day now.
Starting with the claim that what Trump did was bribery. It isn’t. And that’s a problem fir the Dems because bribery means that both the quid and the quo have to be shown.
If Pelosi’s staffers were thinking clearly instead of just trying to dumb things down so their constituency will understand what they are accusing Trump with.... they wouldn’t go with bribery. They would go with a Federal statute that fits almost exactly with what actually (probably) happened. But maybe extortion is too big of a word I guess.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/601
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Republican strategy of restating a million times, "he ultimately released the aid and no investigation of Hunter was conducted," is pretty damn effective though, even though it was pretty clearly an extortion attempt.
No. Smells like Patchouli.SeattleGriz wrote:But, does that fascism smell good?Aho Old Guy wrote:
SeattleGriz prefers JWND*
*Jesus World Nut Daily
(no offense)
"True Patriots and Real Americans"? __ Conservative Treehouse smells like Fascism to me.
But “Bribery” tested better with the focus groups. So that’s what they’re going with. Never mind there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. It tested well.CID1990 wrote:What do you expect?93henfan wrote:More Dem nuttiness. Not only must the accused prove their innocence, but apparently hearsay is much better than direct evidence. You can't make this stuff up:
Pelosi is scoring own goals every day now.
Starting with the claim that what Trump did was bribery. It isn’t. And that’s a problem fir the Dems because bribery means that both the quid and the quo have to be shown.
If Pelosi’s staffers were thinking clearly instead of just trying to dumb things down so their constituency will understand what they are accusing Trump with.... they wouldn’t go with bribery. They would go with a Federal statute that fits almost exactly with what actually (probably) happened. But maybe extortion is too big of a word I guess.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/601
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep. Posted about switching to bribery earlier in the week. Focus groups showed nobody knows what quid pro quo means.AZGrizFan wrote:But “Bribery” tested better with the focus groups. So that’s what they’re going with. Never mind there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. It tested well.CID1990 wrote:
What do you expect?
Pelosi is scoring own goals every day now.
Starting with the claim that what Trump did was bribery. It isn’t. And that’s a problem fir the Dems because bribery means that both the quid and the quo have to be shown.
If Pelosi’s staffers were thinking clearly instead of just trying to dumb things down so their constituency will understand what they are accusing Trump with.... they wouldn’t go with bribery. They would go with a Federal statute that fits almost exactly with what actually (probably) happened. But maybe extortion is too big of a word I guess.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/601
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I heard from my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate that Orange Man Bad!SDHornet wrote:
HI54UNI wrote:But I heard from my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate that Orange Man Bad!SDHornet wrote:
