[paradox]

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have...................."

He's not getting indicted because it works against the Dems politically. Would be somewhat surprised if it moves to trial because public would hear a defense littered w/voting irregularities.

[rtb72]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

I think Eastman goes down, which should mean Trump goes down since Eastman was doing Trump’s bidding, but I don’t really see it going that way. I think the best shot of Trump being convicted of a crime is going to be his interference with state elections since that’s on tape. Hard to weasel your way out of recorded phone calls.

First point. Hearsay is exactly information from other people in the room with Trump. In a criminal court...unless the person who said admits to saying it or is present at the hearing to dispute...it's hearsay.

Secondly. Trump will not be convicted. Burden of proof is on state who has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's where it all gets fuzzy. Not saying Trump is innocent of all things here....but you are getting one side. There is information that is not going to be presented, because....well.....politics.

[rtb72]

This is the case the committee is making through testimony so far. I hope it’s clear enough.

Yeah, but you're sayin' that he hypothetically would have blocked the election if key figures went along with it. But it never actually happened. Not a crime. Although, really bad intensions.

It’s textbook criminal conspiracy.

Relevant tweet:

I'm sorry, but...let's see. What's the acronym the kids use...ROTFLOL....I think that's it. I'll take NPR over this clown. Heck...I'll take CNN over this clown.

[rtb72]

You keep saying hearsay, which, technically it is, but it’s not the hearsay you’re suggesting here. Its people literally in the room with Trump, et. al reporting what they heard Trump, et. al say. It’s not “I heard somebody say that Trump said…” It’s the kind of hearsay that can actually used as evidence since it’s from direct observation.

Indeed. Many a criminal has been convicted on such "hearsay".

Not if the judge and defense attorney was doing their jobs. Look....I've been in the courtroom for over 27 years. Hearsay is not admissible. Civil court..sure. Not in criminal court. I'm sure there have been convictions where hearsay evidence was presented or even allowed....but it was not what got them convicted. If it were....they'd have an easy appeals pathway.

Hopefully you can see why hearsay is not an allowable standard. It would put our citizenry in a very dangerous place, i.e. Salem with trials.

[rtb72]

I did as well. Thanks.

I'll just make a couple of points.

1. Unfortunately McConnell scrapped the deal for a third-party investigation.

2, Trump, today or yesterday, said it was "very stupid" for McCARTHY to not put other Republicans on the committee. (Obviously after Jordan and other were pushed off by Pelosi),

3. The fact that there is corroborating evidence of Trump's aides/appointees under oath is meaningful. Jason Miller would have never admitted to some of what he did had he not been under oath. Not a chance.

4. Trump could defend himself on the panel and they would show it wall to wall. His chance to tell his side of the story unfiltered. He won't.

5. I believe I have only quoted directly from the unaltered transcripts and not that of any press reports or opinion pieces.

6. If they find enough (some think they already have), I do believe Trump should be indicted. I have read two points on this. One is it has to be done and the other is it really could foment serious unrest. I lean towards the first. 48 years later, Ford's pardon of Nixon before he went to trial seems like the right thing to do. If Trump were indicted, a president could do the same or Trump could insist he fight to clear his name.

7. Why did Eastman plead the 5th more than 100 times (under oath, showing it does have leverage) and ask for a pardon? I keep going back to that because of every legal aide/appointee other than Eastman told Trump Eastman's plan wasn't Constitutional, he still went with Eastman.

Let's see here...

1. 3rd party would have been better. Objective would have been ideal.Not gonna happen on left or right in Washington. He can move unilaterally?
2. Pretty much was stupid.
3. Means nothing. Corroborating what? Hearsay? Not admissible...just means he heard her say he said he heard her say it.
4. You are delusional if you think he could defend himself to this committee. No matter how strong his case was. That's like having Hillary state her case before a Republican hearing...oh wait....
5. Yep...you quoted transcripts from witnesses vetted by the committee and orchestrated for affect. Yep...that's what you did.
6. Should be? Sure. Will be? No! Trump will not be indicted if this is all they have. Sorry...but a criminal court is VERY DIFFERENT than what you are watching. Indicted in DC...maybe (very tentative)...convicted....not a chance.
7. Don't know...don't care...but it's his right. Do we really want to get into 5th Amendment pleas when questioned under oath??? #Benghazi

Don't misunderstand...I have NO love for Trump. Wish he would just go away frankly. Nevertheless...I find the position of many on the left making hay about this to be disingenuous at best.

Finally...I really don't care. I just find it interesting what people will wholly believe versus what they'll dismiss. Both sides. You made a comment earlier that "truth is truth". I agree, but would add one key addition to ensure its veracity. "Absolute" truth.....is truth.

[
*]McConnel stopped a third party. the House had agreed.

Depends on who 3rd party was. If House agreed...I'm suspect...sorry.

*I think we had adequately explained that "hearsay" is really corroborated testimony by first-person witnesses. (You still may not agree).

I don't.

*Hillary gave testimony to the Benghazi investigation for 13 straight hours. It was televised. Would be the same for Trump

And who believed her other than the same people that was going to believe what they believed anyway

*Orchestrated for attack? does that mean an organized investigation?

Not organized when you leave out mitigating factors. That's called biased juris-prudence.

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have". I think the problem is it doesn't seem like you, and especially others. really care if there is more. It's "let's move on", "No one cares". Hard to have it both ways, unless the goal is to avoid an investigation, which of course it is for many.

I don't care if Trump is investigated. If he committed a crime...fine. What I do care about is if he...or any American is investigated in the way presently being utilized. There is no due diligence to this circus. In a true criminal proceeding (which this is not), the defendant has say so in their jury pool. Assuming the House committee is acting as such, there was no such thing afforded Trump. Further lending to my assertion he will not be convicted of anything. The more I think about it....I'm curious if the Dems really want a true criminal trial. At that point, Trump would be entitled to everything from the left as well. FULL DISCOVERY! That might actually be interesting. Another little pesky matter in a criminal case is that loathsome "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing. Yeah....that is not going to happen.

[Just John]

The only argument you guys seem to be making is of the emotional partisan variety. Would love to see your collective dream come true though. Trump gone w/blood mostly on Dem's hands.

... We are the ones point out facts and testimony. No one else is doing that...

Presenting material from prestige communicators, who loosely use "facts" and partial truths to spin partisan information, doesn't hold as the undisputed truth. Accusation is not evidence.

So since all of those testifying so far at the televised hearings (other than the two poll workers whom I don't know) are Republicans, and hired or appointed by Trump, what is this "spin partisan information" you speak of?

[Just John]

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have...................."

He's not getting indicted because it works against the Dems politically. Would be somewhat surprised if it moves to trial because public would hear a defense littered w/voting irregularities.

Should we put this up there with "you can't be prosecuted for for doing something if it didn't work" brilliance?

Neither one of us know whether he will be indicted. But we do know one thing, it for sure won't go to trial unless he is indicted. LOL

[Just John]

Let's see here...

1. 3rd party would have been better. Objective would have been ideal.Not gonna happen on left or right in Washington. He can move unilaterally?
2. Pretty much was stupid.
3. Means nothing. Corroborating what? Hearsay? Not admissible...just means he heard her say he said he heard her say it.
4. You are delusional if you think he could defend himself to this committee. No matter how strong his case was. That's like having Hillary state her case before a Republican hearing...oh wait....
5. Yep...you quoted transcripts from witnesses vetted by the committee and orchestrated for affect. Yep...that's what you did.
6. Should be? Sure. Will be? No! Trump will not be indicted if this is all they have. Sorry...but a criminal court is VERY DIFFERENT than what you are watching. Indicted in DC...maybe (very tentative)...convicted....not a chance.
7. Don't know...don't care...but it's his right. Do we really want to get into 5th Amendment pleas when questioned under oath??? #Benghazi

Don't misunderstand...I have NO love for Trump. Wish he would just go away frankly. Nevertheless...I find the position of many on the left making hay about this to be disingenuous at best.

Finally...I really don't care. I just find it interesting what people will wholly believe versus what they'll dismiss. Both sides. You made a comment earlier that "truth is truth". I agree, but would add one key addition to ensure its veracity. "Absolute" truth.....is truth.

[
*]McConnel stopped a third party. the House had agreed.

Depends on who 3rd party was. If House agreed...I'm suspect...sorry.

*I think we had adequately explained that "hearsay" is really corroborated testimony by first-person witnesses. (You still may not agree).

I don't.

*Hillary gave testimony to the Benghazi investigation for 13 straight hours. It was televised. Would be the same for Trump

And who believed her other than the same people that was going to believe what they believed anyway

*Orchestrated for attack? does that mean an organized investigation?

Not organized when you leave out mitigating factors. That's called biased juris-prudence.

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have". I think the problem is it doesn't seem like you, and especially others. really care if there is more. It's "let's move on", "No one cares". Hard to have it both ways, unless the goal is to avoid an investigation, which of course it is for many.

I don't care if Trump is investigated. If he committed a crime...fine. What I do care about is if he...or any American is investigated in the way presently being utilized. There is no due diligence to this circus. In a true criminal proceeding (which this is not), the defendant has say so in their jury pool. Assuming the House committee is acting as such, there was no such thing afforded Trump. Further lending to my assertion he will not be convicted of anything. The more I think about it....I'm curious if the Dems really want a true criminal trial. At that point, Trump would be entitled to everything from the left as well. FULL DISCOVERY! That might actually be interesting. Another little pesky matter in a criminal case is that loathsome "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing. Yeah....that is not going to happen.

A conviction is certainly no slam dunk. And you make fair points regarding these hearing being much different from a trial. Don't disagree at all. And I can understand a hesitancy of an administration not wanting to go after a previous administration of another party. That's never been done in the US. But sadly, Trump has put the country in a tough position.

I agreed with much of Trump's policies, to the degree he had many. And I definitely thought he was better than HRC. But I said at the time in 2016 one of my major concerns was his authoritative tendencies and would not vote for him. (Or HRC). I wish I had been wrong.

[paradox]

... We are the ones point out facts and testimony. No one else is doing that...

Presenting material from prestige communicators, who loosely use "facts" and partial truths to spin partisan information, doesn't hold as the undisputed truth. Accusation is not evidence.

So since all of those testifying so far at the televised hearings (other than the two poll workers whom I don't know) are Republicans, and hired or appointed by Trump, what is this "spin partisan information" you speak of?

So, what would be the alternative? You have a colossal amount of time on your hands and you're actually watching this on C-SPAN and drawing your own original conclusions?

[paradox]

*You say Trump will not be indicted "if this is all they have...................."

He's not getting indicted because it works against the Dems politically. Would be somewhat surprised if it moves to trial because public would hear a defense littered w/voting irregularities.

Should we put this up there with "you can't be prosecuted for for doing something if it didn't work" brilliance?

Neither one of us know whether he will be indicted. But we do know one thing, it for sure won't go to trial unless he is indicted. LOL

Pretty sure I used the term "hypothetical." What-if scenarios only play in media. Am I mistaken to assume that only things that actually happen matter? Do I need to make room for what-ifs?

[TH Spangler]

Back on original topic, tracking mules.

June 15th Warren, Wyden, Murray, Whitehouse, Sanders Introduce Legislation to Ban Data Brokers from Selling Americans' Location Data.

[thepostman]

What's actually funny is that would typically be a very conservative idea. We live in the twilight zone apparently.

[TH Spangler]

What's actually funny is that would typically be a very conservative idea. We live in the twilight zone apparently.

Washington is broken. Crony DC law firms, lobbyist foreign and domestic, dark money, fake msm have hijacked what little was left.

Trump was an outsider, their reaction to his election was an eye opener for me.

[thepostman]

[TH Spangler]

[thepostman]

The irony that you of all people are posting that picture. But hey Trump, a wealthy businessman, is truly an outsider. Right....you keep regurgitating those Trump rally talking points.

[paradox]

Thinking back to Romney's 47% comment along with GW Bush comment that he's likely last GOP president. Does GOP have an electoral college disadvantage. Do they need Dem defectors?

[TH Spangler]

Thinking back to Romney's 47% comment along with GW Bush comment that he's likely last GOP president. Does GOP have an electoral college disadvantage. Do they need Dem defectors?

Dems agenda is on clear display now. If there's no detectors we're history.

[paradox]

Just wondering if this would be a good time for the GOP to recalibrate and maybe focus on a different kind of Dem voter? Stop chasing angry fringe voters. And cash in on all the Dem-mania.

[TH Spangler]

Irresponsible energy policy will get Ron DeSantis elected and flip congress. Trump will remain a policy force for near see able future.

Politics is frustrating for Christians with a true Biblical worldview. We vote, but it's not going to change God's timeline. We're headed toward a one world government.

[Just John]

He's not getting indicted because it works against the Dems politically. Would be somewhat surprised if it moves to trial because public would hear a defense littered w/voting irregularities.

Should we put this up there with "you can't be prosecuted for for doing something if it didn't work" brilliance?

Neither one of us know whether he will be indicted. But we do know one thing, it for sure won't go to trial unless he is indicted. LOL

Pretty sure I used the term "hypothetical." What-if scenarios only play in media. Am I mistaken to assume that only things that actually happen matter? Do I need to make room for what-ifs?

Not seeing "hypothetical" anywhere.

[Just John]

Presenting material from prestige communicators, who loosely use "facts" and partial truths to spin partisan information, doesn't hold as the undisputed truth. Accusation is not evidence.

So since all of those testifying so far at the televised hearings (other than the two poll workers whom I don't know) are Republicans, and hired or appointed by Trump, what is this "spin partisan information" you speak of?

So, what would be the alternative? You have a colossal amount of time on your hands and you're actually watching this on C-SPAN and drawing your own original conclusions?

I fail to see any correlation of this to all of those testifying on the televised hearing being GOP and Trump appointees?

[paradox]

Again, is it safe to assume that you're either drawing conclusions via opinionated sources or watching CSPN all day? Also, both parities need him out, but don't want blood on their hands.

[paradox]

Should we put this up there with "you can't be prosecuted for for doing something if it didn't work" brilliance?

Neither one of us know whether he will be indicted. But we do know one thing, it for sure won't go to trial unless he is indicted. LOL

Pretty sure I used the term "hypothetical." What-if scenarios only play in media. Am I mistaken to assume that only things that actually happen matter? Do I need to make room for what-ifs?

Not seeing "hypothetical" anywhere.

It's there...... Also, haven't been watching CNN. But Dem media is likely spinning hypotheticals into reality for their base. They need to motivate their social issues voters for the mid-terms.

[paradox]

Irresponsible energy policy will get Ron DeSantis elected and flip congress. Trump will remain a policy force for near see able future.

Politics is frustrating for Christians....

Congress looks like a forgone conclusion. Difficult to predict 2024 at this stage. Should be interesting, though.

Politics doesn't have to be frustrating for Christians. I find that most people are somewhere in the middle, only leaning left or right. Oftentimes, many among the most pragmatic don't vote.