[W;622]Please... Be honest. Do you really think a second impeachment is good for the country?

[cabse5]

Why is it hearsay? Why not call direct witness testimony?

You remember the words of Johnnie Cochran the attorney for OJ Simpson?..."If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."...That was just one example of hearsay evidence always allowed into a courtroom trial by a judge which may (or not) have contributed to the exoneration of Simpson at the trial.

Judges allow hearsay evidence at their own trials but won't allow hearsay evidence to determine the democratic nature of the 2020 presidential election?

 

[cabse5]

The 'American People' don't think that. A few losers that Trump lied to starting before the election were gullible enough to buy that crap. If you're skeptical of the results, that's your own fault for believing lying liars.

I've already posted that authoritarians like you don't think like that.

 

[vegas giants]

You remember the words of Johnnie Cochran the attorney for OJ Simpson?..."If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."...That was just one example of hearsay evidence always allowed into a courtroom trial by a judge which may (or not) have contributed to the exoneration of Simpson at the trial.

Judges allow hearsay evidence at their own trials but won't allow hearsay evidence to determine the democratic nature of the 2020 presidential election?

That doesnt answer my question. Why not use direct testimony? If you have all these witnesses ....call them to the stand.


Unless you really dont have any witnesses

 

[ASHES]

I've already posted that authoritarians like you don't think like that.

Resorting to ad hom will not help your anaemic argument.

 

[cabse5]

That doesnt answer my question. Why not use direct testimony? If you have all these witnesses ....call them to the stand.


Unless you really dont have any witnesses

Or you could ensure the American people that American elections are free and fair (or not in the case of the 2020 election)...not ensuring the freeness and fairness of the 2020 election, that is.

 

[vegas giants]

Or you could ensure the American people that American elections are free an fair (or not in the case of the 2020 election)...not ensuring the freeness and fairness of the 2020 election, that is.

If they were mot free and fair call witnesses and make your case.


If you have ZERO witnesses or other evidence....then you have no case

 

[cabse5]

Resorting to ad hom will not help your anaemic argument.

Just pointing out my pleas fall on the deaf ears of authoritarians (who don't care about individuals' rights, for example).

 

[cabse5]

If they were mot free and fair call witnesses and make your case.


If you have ZERO witnesses or other evidence....then you have no case

Why didn't you say that at the investigation of the Trump campaign after the 2016 election??

 

[vegas giants]

Just pointing out my pleas fall on the deaf ears of authoritarians (who don't care about individuals' rights, for example).

Whenever you lose an argument you just call people authoritarians and run away. Lol

 

[cabse5]

Whenever you lose an argument you just call people authoritarians and run away. Lol

I call them as I see them....and I didn't lose to a rational thinker.

 

[vegas giants]

Why didn't you say that at the investigation of the Trump campaign after the 2016 election??

You mean the one where REPUBLICANS insisted on a special.prosecutor? Where 17 intelligence agencies said there was evidence of Russian involvement? You mean that election?

 

[vegas giants]

I call them as I see them.

Yeah me too.

 

[cabse5]

You mean the one where REPUBLICANS insisted on a special.prosecutor? Where 17 intelligence agencies said there was evidence of Russian involvement? You mean that election?

You just need to read my posts sometimes. I've posted many times (don't know how many times on this thread) that all Americans need to be assured that all American elections are free and fair...And yes, I agreed to the investigation into the Trump campaign after the 2016 election until I was satisfied there was no claim of a non-free nor non-fair 2016 election.

 

[vegas giants]

You just need to read my posts sometimes. I've posted many times (don't know how many times on this thread) that all Americans need to be assured that all American elections are free and fair...And yes, I agreed to the investigation into the Trump campaign after the 2016 election until I was satisfied there was no claim of a non-free nor non-fair 2016 election.

Right. In 2016 there was evidence. There is no evidence now. Even Republicans now dont want to appoint a special prosecutor for this election.


There is nothing to investigate

 

[cabse5]

Right. In 2016 there was evidence. There is no evidence now. Even Republicans now dont want to appoint a special prosecutor for this election.


There is nothing to investigate

NO. There was hearsay.

Look as I've already pointed out to another, an authoritarian won't pay attention to this type of argument of assuring everyone that all elections are free and fair...Might as well extoll the virtues of the New York Yankees to a Mets fan.

 

[vegas giants]

NO. There was hearsay.

Not according to 17 intelligence agencies who reported that they had direct evidence of Russian interference

 

[cabse5]

Right. In 2016 there was evidence. There is no evidence now. Even Republicans now dont want to appoint a special prosecutor for this election.


There is nothing to investigate

There was nothing to investigate after the 2016 either. Why the hypocrisy?

 

[cabse5]

Not according to 17 intelligence agencies who reported that they had direct evidence of Russian interference

Intelligence based on what evidence, pray tell?

 

[Buckeyes85]

You remember the words of Johnnie Cochran the attorney for OJ Simpson?..."If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."...That was just one example of hearsay evidence always allowed into a courtroom trial by a judge which may (or not) have contributed to the exoneration of Simpson at the trial.

Judges allow hearsay evidence at their own trials but won't allow hearsay evidence to determine the democratic nature of the 2020 presidential election?

That was not hearsay as it wasn't evidence at all. It was part of his closing argument.

 

[vegas giants]

Intelligence based on what evidence, pray tell?

Direct evidence that members of congress saw. You are not cleared to see it. Do you claim all 17 are lying?

 

[weaver2]

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Thats one sentence out of an hours long string of sentence urging violence against the country. Do I think you are being honest?

Well, do you?

Nope, you are not being honest about what Trump has done.

 

[cabse5]

That was not hearsay as it wasn't evidence at all. It was part of his closing argument.

It wasn't stricken from the record so the jurors were allowed to consider the statement.

 

[cabse5]

Direct evidence that members of congress saw. You are not cleared to see it. Do you claim all 17 are lying?

I know that Schiff was lying.

I also know the only source that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election came from Crowdstrike.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Intelligence based on what evidence, pray tell?

Why are you even disputing this? There is no question that the Russians did interfere in our election and did so to benefit Trump. Its not even debatable. The issue was whether team Trump colluded with the Russians.

 

[vegas giants]

I know that Schiff was lying.

That's nice. If that's all you have I accept your concession