3rdnlng Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: You're a dingbat. You can't question him this very second. He's going to get questioned. Relax brother. I know you like the urgency of "tomorrow" and "It's all going to happen next week," but it won't be too much longer until we hear from him. The fact that you, DR with all your followers across the globe who copy and share your thoughts as you say, don't yet know is not something most of us are worried about. It's coming. Have a cup of coffee and by about the time you're done, his name will be out. That's why you were so impatient to condemn Trump in this matter. You should stop, you're giving lawyers a bad name.
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Says the guy literally parroting the media while refusing to read the primary source material for themselves. You don't know what this story is really about because you've decided you're better off remaining ignorant rather than thinking for yourself. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf Eye roll. Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works. ”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say. Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64
whatdrought Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: indirect whistelblowers can be 100% credible A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: Eye roll. Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works. I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll.
whatdrought Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Eye roll. Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works. ”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say. Without Direct Sources, there is no evidence..... It's called hearsay. A whistleblower without direct sources is just a guy putting words together. 1
3rdnlng Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Constantly pointing out there is no quid pro quo, direct evidence, etc. is dumb. It’s nice buzz words you can repeat.... Secondary and circumstantial evidence can be just as strong. indirect whistelblowers can be 100% credible Explicit Quid pro quo isn’t the only way to do what he is accused of doing. i haven’t thought about this scandal at all, but you all parroting these defenses show you really don’t know anything Now there you go again, sticking your nose into a conversation that you have no basic knowledge of or the specifics of the prior discussion. 1
Albwan Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Eye roll. Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works. ”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say. Unless you're Clarice Starling. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 https://freebeacon.com/politics/ukraine-whistleblowers-lead-attorney-donated-to-biden/ 1
Tiberius Posted September 25, 2019 Author Posted September 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, whatdrought said: No, I don't think that's wrong. Of course not.
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, whatdrought said: A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say. That’s just not true. Secondary sources can be just as credible. And don’t even get me started on hearsay. It doesn’t necessarily goes to credibility, but admissibility....so who cares? Plus it’s not that simple. 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll. You clearly dont. Find a tedtalk or something on evidence dude. You sound dumb when you parrot dumb things. 10 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Without Direct Sources, there is no evidence..... It's called hearsay. A whistleblower without direct sources is just a guy putting words together. That’s blatantly not true and objectively wrong. But okay Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Schiff giving a presser now. He claims Trump saying, "we haven't gotten enough reciprocity" is proof he was shaking the Ukraine down. Uh... Mr. Pencil Neck, that's been Trump's policy since day one of his campaign. That kind of talk is not a shakedown. 1
B-Man Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 We are going to learn this week and at the hearing (if it happens) that the "whistleblower" was handled appropriately - and that the complaint was not even within the ODNI legal issues it can investigate - in other words the complaint from day one was bogus - and 100% political . 2
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: You clearly dont. Find a tedtalk or something on evidence dude. You sound dumb when you parrot dumb things. Link me where I said something wrong about evidence. Thanks. I didn't. Because I know how it works, having worked in the legal field for a good chunk of my early career. Bye, Troll.
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll. But you're not an adjunct professor at a community college, so there! 4
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Schiff just trotted out lie after lie as fact -- none of which were pushed back on by the media: 1) Trump asked for and received foreign interference in 2016 (Nope, but Schiff and his side did) 2) The Ukrainian president knew what Trump "really" meant (though he has no way to know what the president thinks) He also looks like he's been crying. 1
John Adams Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: That's why you were so impatient to condemn Trump in this matter. You should stop, you're giving lawyers a bad name. Here's what I knew and said before the transcript, repeated many times so even someone as dense as you would have a chance at getting it: 20 hours ago, John Adams said: It was wrong when it was done to Trump. It is wrong now. In this exact thread is we are talking about the current sitting president and what the repercussions will be if the transcript shows what has been reported. We know for sure: - He withheld the money (and later released it after pressured by Congress when the media broke the story that he'd withheld it) - He had the call. - Trump said, "The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption—all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” ... With apologies for his mangling of our mother tongue, I don't know if this means he pressured Zelensky on the call directly about Biden...or if he just applied general pressure regarding corruption...or as is his want and most likely, he applied pressure about Biden in a wink-wink way. - Rudy is about as clear as mud but acting at the president's behest, he's applied pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden. What will be interesting is if he put pressure on the Ukraine on the call to investigate anyone by name, and in particular anyone other than Biden. I would not think the Bidens are the only possible dirty dealers in the Ukraine and singling Hunter Biden out would be troubling. I've now read the transcript. It's troubling that our president directly pressured another country's president to investigate his leading political opponent. He withheld the funding before the call. He brought up the funding in a roundabout way on the call. There's a lot of smoke there. Maybe there's more to come, maybe not. Reserving judgment but I maintain my position all along that the Dems jumped the gun here--they should not have initiated impeachment unless and until they were pretty certain of success.
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: But you're not an adjunct professor at a community college, so there! Lol whatever floats your boat. Insults that we both know aren’t true don’t bother me. Experienced big law attorney and teach at a top 20 law school....I’ll forever be more qualified than you on this
Recommended Posts