+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump (/Thread-Whistle-Blower%E2%80%99s-Complaint-Is-Said-to-Involve-Multiple-Acts-by-Trump)
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-14-2019
This seems like a safe and sane thing to do.
I don’t have confirmation of who the whistleblower is but I doubt it’s Alexander Soros. This member of Congress is putting a target on somebody without doing a basic Google check. https://t.co/TYV8s45j8i
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) November 14, 2019
I'm sure the GOP is A-OK with it.
Also, I shared it because it is STILL posted on his Twitter account and I doubt anyone here is going to hunt Soros down.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-14-2019
I think this is a fair way for me to leave off this thread. Cheers!
"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."
— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) November 13, 2019
Uh ??
So not only are the Democrats ADMITTING their entire impeachment sham is based off of hearsay, but now they're trying to defend it. What a joke! pic.twitter.com/14oYqp2UGJ
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-14-2019
(11-14-2019, 07:22 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I think this is a fair way for me to leave off this thread. Cheers!
"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."
— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) November 13, 2019
Uh ??
So not only are the Democrats ADMITTING their entire impeachment sham is based off of hearsay, but now they're trying to defend it. What a joke! pic.twitter.com/14oYqp2UGJ
I don't understand the whole hearsay thing. Didn't Sondland say it was a quid pro quo? Wasn't he someone that was directly involved? And why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-15-2019
(11-14-2019, 09:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. I don't understand the whole hearsay thing. 2. Didn't Sondland say it was a quid pro quo? Wasn't he someone that was directly involved? And 3. why aren't we hearing from more direct people? 4. the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. 5. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?1. Hearsay isn't evidence so you can't impeach someone in it.
2. His words have to be able to be cross-examined and what he says has to be verified. But this would be actual evidence and not hearsay.
3. Because the transcript is already out
4. Who's being prevented from testifying? I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches I just did.
5. The Ukraine President said he didn't know anything was being withheld, but I don't know that he would came testify. Taylor also testified Ukraine was unaware aid was being withheld, but he was already called as a witness by the Democrats.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - BmorePat87 - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:03 AM)6andcounting Wrote: 1. Hearsay isn't evidence so you can't impeach someone in it.
2. His words have to be able to be cross-examined and what he says has to be verified. But this would be actual evidence and not hearsay.
3. Because the transcript is already out
4. Who's being prevented from testifying? I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches I just did.
5. The Ukraine President said he didn't know anything was being withheld, but I don't know that he would came testify. Taylor also testified Ukraine was unaware aid was being withheld, but he was already called as a witness by the Democrats.
His point is Sondland was directly involved and said it was quid pro quo, so why are people hung up over trying to label the whistleblower's knowledge as hearsay when Sondland was directly involved.
As to people prevented from testifying, the Trump administration told people to refuse subpoenas. I don't think it's hard to find that on google. Those who have appeared ignored his order.
The following people have refused a Congressional subpoena to provide documents: Pompeo, Sondland (refused to provide documents even though his testified), Pence, Guiliani, Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Mark Esper.
The following have refused a Congressional subpoena to appear: Charles Kupperman, John Eisenberg, Michael Duffey, Ulrich Brechbuhl, and Russell Vought
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:03 AM)6andcounting Wrote: 1. Hearsay isn't evidence so you can't impeach someone in it.
2. His words have to be able to be cross-examined and what he says has to be verified. But this would be actual evidence and not hearsay.
3. Because the transcript is already out
4. Who's being prevented from testifying? I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches I just did.
5. The Ukraine President said he didn't know anything was being withheld, but I don't know that he would came testify. Taylor also testified Ukraine was unaware aid was being withheld, but he was already called as a witness by the Democrats.
I normally chalk most your posts up to S***posting but this is getting silly.
The whistleblowers report was mostly verified by the partial transcript that Trump supplied, Trump's admin has told several people to ignore subpoenas, testimony Wednesday was that the Ukraine Pres didn't know it was being withheld until a week before the first inquiry about why it was and when the heat got turned on Trump released the money...and the Ukraine Pres asked as soon as he found out about it.
That Trump "poorly" attempted to strong arm the Ukraine for something that doesn't exist doesn't make it less of a serious event.
If he had used a rubber chicken to try to rob a library because he thought it was a bank and he failed he'd still be accused of attempted robbery.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:03 AM)6andcounting Wrote: 1. Hearsay isn't evidence so you can't impeach someone in it.
The complaint was investigated by the IG and found credible and urgent. The IG is required by law to report credible complaints to Congress. The IG’s report to Congress was blocked. Right now the House is investigating multiple witnesses to determine if there is enough evidence to vote for impeachment. Thus Trump hasn’t been impeached based upon hearsay of one whistleblower. Hearsay, which I might add, is from officials within the White House who have security clearances to handle this type of information. The whole “hearsay” label is just an attempt by the White House to equate the whistleblower’s information to nothing more than water cooler gossip. The IG already determined it’s not gossip, but rather credible and urgent.
Quote:2. His words have to be able to be cross-examined and what he says has to be verified. But this would be actual evidence and not hearsay.
This is an investigation. Not a trial. If the House votes for impeachment based upon their investigation then the Senate will conduct the trial where he can be cross examined.
Quote:3. Because the transcript is already out
It is not a transcript. It’s a summary which deliberately excludes parts of the conversation.
Quote:4. Who's being prevented from testifying? I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches I just did.
See Pat’s summary. In addition there is a lawsuit asking a judge to decide if witnesses have to comply with Congressional subpoenas or with Trump’s directive not to cooperate. Mulvaney tried to join the lawsuit then changed his mind. Can you imagine that? Mulvaney needs clarification if he should cooperate with a Congressional investigation into wrongdoing or listen to his boss who is attempting to stonewall the Congressional investigation into wrongdoing because Mulvaney doesn’t want to get in trouble with the law. Dawg, you’ve made your bed, time to lie in it.
Quote:5. The Ukraine President said he didn't know anything was being withheld, but I don't know that he would came testify. Taylor also testified Ukraine was unaware aid was being withheld, but he was already called as a witness by the Democrats.
Taylor testified Ukrainian officials were aware the aid was withheld and directly tied to the quid pro qua the White House has admitted was, in fact, a quid pro quo.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:03 AM)6andcounting Wrote: 1. Hearsay isn't evidence so you can't impeach someone in it.
The rest of your post has been addressed already, but this hasn't. Yes, you can. This isn't a criminal trial. Congress can impeach on anything they want to. Even when it becomes a trial in the Senate, the bar isn't the same. Due process rights do not exist for impeachment. Also, impeachment is specifically holding someone to a higher bar than criminal conduct and the criminal system. The framers wanted our officials held to a higher standard.
My last point on this is that the most commonly drawn comparison to the criminal process is that the House is the grand jury deciding to indict. This isn't a perfect comparison for a number of reasons, but in a grand jury hearsay can absolutely be admitted to get an indictment. Hearsay can be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial as well with certain stipulations. Twitter lawyers are getting that shit all wrong.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The rest of your post has been addressed already, but this hasn't. Yes, you can. This isn't a criminal trial. Congress can impeach on anything they want to. Even when it becomes a trial in the Senate, the bar isn't the same. Due process rights do not exist for impeachment. Also, impeachment is specifically holding someone to a higher bar than criminal conduct and the criminal system. The framers wanted our officials held to a higher standard.
My last point on this is that the most commonly drawn comparison to the criminal process is that the House is the grand jury deciding to indict. This isn't a perfect comparison for a number of reasons, but in a grand jury hearsay can absolutely be admitted to get an indictment. Hearsay can be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial as well with certain stipulations. Twitter lawyers are getting that shit all wrong.
I wouldn’t call them Twitter lawyers so much as people just repeating the Republican talking points. Like “read the transcript.” It’s not a transcript. Or “he has a right to face his accuser.” This isn’t a trial. Etcetera.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 12:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I wouldn’t call them Twitter lawyers so much as people just repeating the Republican talking points. Like “read the transcript.” It’s not a transcript. Or “he has a right to face his accuser.” This isn’t a trial. Etcetera.
I'm just using the phrase that real lawyers have been using to describe them. But yes, they really are just parroting partisan talking points.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Dill - 11-15-2019
(11-14-2019, 09:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't understand the whole hearsay thing. Didn't Sondland say it was a quid pro quo? Wasn't he someone that was directly involved? And why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?
FOX Monday=Hearsay hearsay hearsay hearsay. Yovanovitch never even MET the president? hearsay
More hearsay testimony from the Democrats today. Hearsay through the Deep State grapevine. Trump Derangement syndrome. The public understands what hearsay is. When Obama was president.
So far, all the witnesses have been second or third hand. Globalists in the State Department. Nothing tied directly to Trump. Like Russia investigation. Dem overreach. "Overheard" lol. "Confidential (hearsay) sources" lol.
What was in the testimony yesterday? Hearsay hearsay hearsay. Trump not allowed to call witnesses in his defense but the Dems get to present hearsay. Why won't Schiff release the name of the whistelblower with hearsay testimony? Third hand?
WEDNESDAY already and still haven't heard anything beyond hearsay. The Dems aren't questioning first hand witnesses. Using hearsay instead. Steele Dossier. Hearsay from the Russians. Everything proven a hoax. People aren't fooled. (hearsay)
Apologies to REO Speedwagon, "I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend." After weeks of investigation the whole case still rests on HEARSAY at this point. Political theater. Will it fool the public?
The whistleblower hearsay complaint was based on 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Hearsay about hearsay. No one is fooled. (hearsay, of all things!)
Hillary lied but thats "ok." Different standard for the Clintons. Read the (summary) "transcript," not HEARSAY.
You can't convict on hearsay hearsay, let alone impeach a president on hearsay from Never Trumpers. Americans are tired of the hearsay upon hearsay. If they had more than hearsay we'd hear it. Hearsay, then.
FOX Friday Poll of Trump base: "what's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear about the impeachment hearing?"
Now, Bels, you understand the "whole hearsay thing."
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The complaint was investigated by the IG and found credible and urgent. The IG is required by law to report credible complaints to Congress. The IG’s report to Congress was blocked. Right now the House is investigating multiple witnesses to determine if there is enough evidence to vote for impeachment. Thus Trump hasn’t been impeached based upon hearsay of one whistleblower. Hearsay, which I might add, is from officials within the White House who have security clearances to handle this type of information. The whole “hearsay” label is just an attempt by the White House to equate the whistleblower’s information to nothing more than water cooler gossip. The IG already determined it’s not gossip, but rather credible and urgent.I think the investigation can and should move forward based on evidence that came forth after the whistleblower released his report. The claims others made that were put in the report can be followed-up on.
(11-15-2019, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is an investigation. Not a trial. If the House votes for impeachment based upon their investigation then the Senate will conduct the trial where he can be cross examined.Cross-examining witnesses is specifically written-out as something Trump is allowed to do in the impeachment resolution guidelines.....
(11-15-2019, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It is not a transcript. It’s a summary which deliberately excludes parts of the conversation.It's not a summary. There could be inaccuracies as it's not a "verbatim transcript" because it's typed in real-time, but that doesn't make it a summary.
(11-15-2019, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: See Pat’s summary. In addition there is a lawsuit asking a judge to decide if witnesses have to comply with Congressional subpoenas or with Trump’s directive not to cooperate. Mulvaney tried to join the lawsuit then changed his mind. Can you imagine that? Mulvaney needs clarification if he should cooperate with a Congressional investigation into wrongdoing or listen to his boss who is attempting to stonewall the Congressional investigation into wrongdoing because Mulvaney doesn’t want to get in trouble with the law. Dawg, you’ve made your bed, time to lie in it.
(11-15-2019, 11:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Taylor testified Ukrainian officials were aware the aid was withheld and directly tied to the quid pro qua the White House has admitted was, in fact, a quid pro quo.Taylor just said yesterday the Ukrainians had no idea aid was withheld until Aug 29. The whistleblower report was filed on Aug 12.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - treee - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 07:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Taylor just said yesterday the Ukrainians had no idea aid was withheld until Aug 29. The whistleblower report was filed on Aug 12.
A couple thoughts on this:
- They may have felt compelled to not rock the boat. Clearly from the basis of this entire impeachment, the executive branch has extensive power in regards to international relations.
- Even if you assume they didn't realize it (I personally don't believe that); Just because an extortion attempt failed or was not realized by the other party, that does not decrease the severity of the attempted extortion itself.
It seems like a common defense of Trump's actions is that, due to the fact that he failed to do something improper, his attempt is somehow not as heinous.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 10:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The following people have refused a Congressional subpoena to provide documents: Pompeo, Sondland (refused to provide documents even though his testified), Pence, Guiliani, Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Mark Esper.Thanks for the info and the response.
The following have refused a Congressional subpoena to appear: Charles Kupperman, John Eisenberg, Michael Duffey, Ulrich Brechbuhl, and Russell Vought
I was responding specifically to this comment.
" why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?"
Based on what your saying it sounds like they were asked to not participate, but couldn't be prevented. Plus it's not like these Republicans were going to go and testify or hand over docs anyway. belsnickel framed it as people wanted to give their first hand against Trump but were "prevented".
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 07:22 PM)treee Wrote: A couple thoughts on this:
- They may have felt compelled to not rock the boat. Clearly from the basis of this entire impeachment, the executive branch has extensive power in regards to international relations.
- Even if you assume they didn't realize it (I personally don't believe that); Just because an extortion attempt failed or was not realized by the other party, that does not decrease the severity of the attempted extortion itself.
It seems like a common defense of Trump's actions is that, due to the fact that he failed to do something improper, his attempt is somehow not as heinous.
If he tried quid pro quo and failed, that would be the same as doing it and succeeding in terms of impeachment. I agree on that.
If They weren't aware until Aug 29, then what's all this about Trump July 25th call with the President of Ukraine?
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - treee - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 07:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If They weren't aware until Aug 29, then what's all this about Trump July 25th call with the President of Ukraine?
That's where I think the "not rocking the boat" part of things come in to play. We all know one of Trump's methods of getting the things he wants is trying to play the 'strong man' and push people around. It wouldn't come as a surprise to me (I'd even go so far is to say that it is likely), that an entity he has such a potential impact on would be hesitant to paint him in a bad light.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - BmorePat87 - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 07:25 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Thanks for the info and the response.
I was responding specifically to this comment.
" why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?"
Based on what your saying it sounds like they were asked to not participate, but couldn't be prevented. Plus it's not like these Republicans were going to go and testify or hand over docs anyway. belsnickel framed it as people wanted to give their first hand against Trump but were "prevented".
Seems like a bad semantics argument. Trump has directed his administration to ignore subpoenas. People now have to decide if they want to jeopardize their job security or risk legal issues.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 07:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Seems like a bad semantics argument. Trump has directed his administration to ignore subpoenas. People now have to decide if they want to jeopardize their job security or risk legal issues.
It's not my fault the words he used to described the situation were inaccurate.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It's not my fault the words he used to described the situation were inaccurate.
Prevention doesn't always work. A prevent defense doesn't guarantee success. Preventing getting sick by getting the flu shot doesn't mean you are guaranteed not to get the flu. My words weren't inaccurate.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - BmorePat87 - 11-15-2019
(11-15-2019, 08:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It's not my fault the words he used to described the situation were inaccurate.
Instead of saying "I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches", why not say "I disagree with the implication of here as they were not prevented, they're just being told by their boss the President not to do it" and then respond to his point by explaining why you think their testimony would be irrelevant anyways?