Don't worry Trump fans, the hearings are going great for Don (wink)

Girlfriend Graham said all this is based on hearsay....when the transcript summary and the Liar in Chief's own words prove the allegations true.

 

It's always instructive to read the posts of Trumpers in order to ascertain what talking points are circulating around the right wing sound chamber. "Heresay" evidence and disagreeing with Trump's policies being primary among them.
Those of us who think for ourselves understand the problem wasn't the foreign diplomats disagreeing with the policy. It was their observation the policy was not being designed to benefit the USA, but rather Trump. As for "heresay," you are really going to have to do better since facts of the testimony the witnesses are giving voice to are not in dispute. If they were, Trumpers would be relying on a counter factual argument, not ineffectually trying to question the witness' credibility.

 

Then why is it not allowed in court?

 

We hear the same things you are writing. How is that thinking for yourself?

 

Hearsay is not at issue. The two witnesses were giving their first hand accounts of events around them. Hearsay is just a defense lawyer's desperate attempt to exonerate an obviously guilty defendant.

 

1. Trump has already commented on the call.
2. Trump released the entire transcript unredacted.
3. Vindman has already testified...
4. Zelensky has already stated that he was not pressured.
5. Morrison - NSC, Vindman's superior, has stated that he found nothing wrong with the transcript.

The key policy makers have already stated their perspective.

Oddly, the Dems won't allow a single Republican witness to testify.
And Schiff is now not willing to allow the whistleblower to testify...

And still this one sided saga has been a total dud for the Dems.

 

And both were asked about what was impeachable. Their answers.... ______________________________________________________________________________.

Schiff finally scuttled the silence.

 

There is no prohibition of "hearsay" in a congressional inquiry. Most of what Trump tells his bum kissers and they believe is "hearsay."

If he insists that his political rival engaged in corruption, why can he provide no evidence - merely "hearsay" from an unreliable source?

 

It is allowed in congressional inquiries.

In criminal cases, the hearsay rule has many exceptions. These exceptions allow for the admission of hearsay when the circumstances make that hearsay sufficiently reliable.

Why do you believe anything Trump tells you instead of rejecting it as "hearsay" from a source known to lie continually?

 

The talking points being issued by the right wing puppet masters pulling the MAGAites strings don't have to be factual, logical, or have any relation to reality. Issuing them has but one goal. Keep The Following in the fold. As long as that is achieved Repub senators will pay more attention to the polls then they will on anything that happens during the Senate trial. Don's guilt, for them, will never enter in to the equation.

 

There are very few rules spelled out for impeachment. That does not make "anything goes" correct.

I don't know that I have heard Trump say anything about hearsay. As far as I can tell, I brought it up before I heard it from anyone else. It is wrong no matter how you try to spin it.

 

Is your exaggeration intentional?

 

You may have been misinformed. "Anything goes" is not the criterion of the congressional impeachment inquiry. The rules are being followed.

Yet you blindly accept it from a source known to lie continually, in a matter in which it is clearly in his self-interest to lie.

When Trump seeks a "favor" - that his political rival be investigated by a foreign government - he uses "corruption" as his pretext (even though he specifically targets Biden in his telephone call to Zelensky, and never mentions "corruption.")

There is no evidence of Biden's corruption, not contrived by Trump's vast law enforcement and investigative apparatus, not by Ukraine, not by China.

When Trump tells you Biden is guilty of corruption, that is hearsay, unsubstantiated by any evidence. Don't believe it.

 

Using the Office of the President to investigate a political adversary is cause for removal from office in my opinion as it is an abuse of power. Those with a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation should not have any part in said investigation as to do so openly invite bias into the investigation which is unethical.

 

What is it I blindly accept? I don't have to accept it from anyone. Witnesses are poor evidence in a crime. Hearsay witnesses are even worse.

 

An assumption not a fact.

 

If you need to accept Trump's hearsay over the coherent and consistent multiple testimonies of apolitical public servants under oath, you will cling to the self-serving hearsay he spews at you, of course.

 

I don;'t "need" to hear anything. Eye witnesses are generally considered unreliable. At best, they tell where to go with an investigation. Compound that with hearsay and you have about as close to nothing as you can get.

 

You don't like the consistent. multiple accounts of apolitical, public servants in the know.

Trump's self-serving, evidence-free claims are generally considered unreliable because he lies continually. His "hearsay" ain't worth poo.

"Do you think Trump is honest and trustworthy, or not?"

He is: 31% // He is not: 61%​

http://pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm​

 

It is not a matter of like or dislike or a matter of what I want. Eye witness accounts tend to be the least reliable sources of information and in this case it is compounded with hearsay.

Then on top of that, I haven't heard a one of the second hand witness accounts say there was a quid pro quo Only that Trump asked for an investigation. We already knew that. However, the dems don't want to call witnesses who could shine a little light on that part of the puzzle.. Namely, the Bidens. The dems are tripping all over themselves.

 

Once again, you say nothing. What did I get wrong? You don't say.

You're all talk.

 

In yesterday's public hearing Taylor’s testimony was consistent with what he told the panel previously, an account that included vivid details of how he discovered that Mr. Trump was conditioning “everything” about the United States relationship with Ukraine — including needed military aid and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president — on the country’s willingness to commit publicly to investigations of his political rivals. His testimony made it clear that the Ukrainians were well aware of the prerequisite at the time.

The top Republican on the Intelligence panel accused the witnesses of working against Trump, casting previous testimony by diplomats and national security officials about the President’s actions toward Ukraine as nothing more than unfounded, second- or third-hand allegations from members of a “politicized bureaucracy.”

In other words, Republicans are saying there is no chain of command in the Trump government, someone other than the President controls foreign relations in the White House, and the only viable witnesses are those in direct contact with Trump.

And Trump is forbidding those witnesses like Mulvaney and Bolton to testify. That is Obstruction of Congress, a federal offense.

In other words, Republicans are arguing that Trump should be allowed to benefit from committing a felony.

 

In their minds, when Trumpette's see a well thought out, logical post like that, they spray MAGA!! graffiti all over it............and then forget they ever saw it.

 

You can tell the circus is failing because the media has changed their language from quid pro quo, to extortion and bribery, to attempred crimes. Nobody is buying it.

 

Yeah, I know. They are avoiding the evidence and the Republican response like the plaque. They simply say the evidence is non-existent, as if saying that makes it true. They offer no substantiation for their remarks. We're just supposed to believe it because they said it.

Of course, they learned that mindless tactic from Trump.

They won't admit the obvious. They are backing a loser.